≑ Menu

Obama Scares the Beejeebers Out of Me

On the eve of Halloween, the scariest thing going is Barack Obama.

You all know I can’t stand McCain. Not only is he not conservative but he’s wrong on issues about as often as he’s right. And his skanky “love story” of chasing his ages younger wife-to-be around a party when he already had a wife-that-was with kids at home makes me want to wretch.

All things considered, I’ve been agonizing over my vote for months. I still don’t know what to do. I’ve never considered Obama a viable option, either, due to ?well ?just about every position he has every taken on every issue and due to his calculated lack of position on most things controversial. (Voting “present” is simply a calculated move to avoid taking a stand. Not a good characteristic for the leader of the free world.)

The choices, to me, have always been:

  1. Write in a vote (protest vote)
  2. Vote for a 3rd party (protest vote)
  3. Vote for McCain while holding my nose and downing Tums (vote against Obama)

The latter becomes more palatable, the more I learn about Obama. All the rhetoric and name-calling aside, I sincerely think Obama qualifies as a socialist.

The really scary thing about socialism, to me, is not “spreading the wealth around” as Obama has declared he will do. It is that by taking wages (“wealth” in Obama-speak) from those who actually earn those wages and giving them to those who do not earn them he is buying votes. And when he buys those votes, he buys power.

By using Karl Marx as the model (“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need.”), he buys his way into position. And then, what does he do with that position? He entrenches himself.

For heaven’s sake, look at history. Where does such a system ultimately lead?

Here are the competing values:

“If you elect me, I will give you the freedom to work hard and make a life for yourself.”

“If you elect me, you get freebies!”

Unfortunately, more and more Americans are leaning toward the latter. By doing so we are all enslaved.

{ 386 comments… add one }
  • Alison Moore Smith October 30, 2008, 10:44 am

    Another Obama favorite position is his refusal to vote to ban partial-birth abortion. He’s lied all over the place on this vote, but the latest is that he would only vote for a bill to ban it if the bill included an escape clause allowing it for the health of the mother.

    I have yet to hear an explanation of how a woman can deliver a child half-way without peril, but that her life depends on the delivery being halted so that the baby can have scissors jammed in its skull and its brains extracted before the delivery is complete.

    And before anyone gets on my case about being graphic, let me refer you to the raging thread on “being nice.” This IS what is happening to these babies. Yes, it’s vile. Yes, it’s abhorrent. But as long as we refuse to address what is really happening to BABIES, because it offends our delicate sensibilities, it will keep happening.

  • Alison Moore Smith October 30, 2008, 10:49 am

    Here is the video that was the catalyst for this article.

    Watch this fool in action. He’s going to “set a goal for a world without nuclear weapons.” But since even his “declared ban” on nukes and grand skills of negotiation will obviously not be respected by our ?ahem ?enemies, he has a plan. Apparently to do so he is going to use his wayback machine to erase all knowledge of nuclear devices from all recorded material and all human brains.

    Commander in Chief?

  • cheryl October 30, 2008, 11:28 am

    I agree, actually. Obama’s platform has scared me since the Primaries, and I honestly preferred Clinton over him (although I don’t like her, either). But nobody wants to hear about Obama’s REAL policies. The problem is that we have a country so desperate for something new, they will ignore policies and platforms and truth and put a man into power who speaks really good and is handsome. Some may argue that’s what happened with Reagan, but golly! Reagan ended the Cold War and crushed communism (well, not in China…)! He also was a governor with some experience.

    This is what I see happening if Obama wins:
    Chaos (protests, tax aversion, etc.)
    War on our own soil (the terrorists will find a way to fight us here, because Obama will stop the Patriot Act, bring all our soldiers home, and everyone will die).

    Okay, so it’s a tad extreme and it *might* not happen. But it’s not gonna be pretty either. If it is pretty? If Obama becomes an amazing president and shames us all?
    Hallelujah. Because I’m afraid he’s going to win.

  • Amy E October 30, 2008, 12:43 pm

    Cheryl, I would have preferred Clinton, too, just because she’s closer to the center than Obama. With Obama, I agree with Alison that he’s looking like a socialist that would shove our country hard left. Drives me crazy. I have decided to vote for McCain if only to keep Obama and his policies out, not that it matters much here in Utah anyway. I think I’ve pretty much decided that I can’t vote for even conservative Democrats because the national party would take it as evidence that they are doing just fine and keep on their merry, destructive way. I find it fascinating that the “media” chooses to forget that the current Congress approval ratings have been lower than Bush’s for the majority of time since the Democrats took power in 2006.

    I have to say that presidential elections drive me batty, especially the media coverage. I’ve had to start a self-imposed media diet composed of select articles from the Wall Street Journal opinion pages because reading and watching it all makes me cranky and I have a harder time focusing on what I really need to do. I’ll vote, but I feel there’s nothing else I can do right now but pray, so why work myself up over it all in the meantime. I’m such a news junkie that it’s required some effort, but I’ve been successful since Monday and it’s really nice. I hope I can keep it up. πŸ™‚

  • Naismith October 30, 2008, 6:54 pm

    If you elect me, you get freebies! ?

    I hardly think that is what Obama is saying. And if he was, he would have to talk louder to drown out the current message. Except that apparently Republicans only think rich people qualify for freebies. It is obscene to me that my husband doesn’t have to pay social security tax the rest of the year. There is a cap on the amount of income that is taxable, and my husband passed it in September. It’s a benefit to the rich. I think that everyone should pay the same social security, whether someone is a janitor or plumber or CEO. And that is the kind of thing you can expect from Obama.

    I don’t think the Obama platform is about freebies. It is about people not dying from lack of health insurance (which happens every day in this country). It is about young people being the first in their family to graduate from college. It is about people being their brother’s keeper, just as we are instructed in scripture.

    Obama is a man of remarkable talent, hard-won faith, and devotion to family and the people he serves. We are fortunate to have someone of his caliber willing to assume the burden of the presidency at this perilous time in our nations’ history.

    My brother, a reservist who was called to active duty three times since 9/11, would not have had to endure the nightmare of Iraq if we had listened to Barack Obama about our ill-advised invasion of that country. He was absolutely correct on that decision, why do we expect him to be wrong on others?

    Plus, he has a steady character that is needed in leadership.

    I’m very impressed that during his tenure in the Senate, he flew home every Thursday night to be with his girls over the weekend, rather than staying in Washington and advancing his career.

  • Naismith October 30, 2008, 6:59 pm

    “Another Obama favorite position is his refusal to vote to ban partial-birth abortion. He’s lied all over the place on this vote, but the latest is that he would only vote for a bill to ban it if the bill included an escape clause allowing it for the health of the mother.”

    I don’t think he has lied. I can’t follow the logic of all his arguments, which are based on the constitutionality of the exact wording of the particular provisions that were being voted on. But I didn’t teach constitutional law at the University of Chicago for 12 years. Obama did.

    “Watch this fool in action.”

    Are we going to call people names, or discuss their policies?

  • Ray October 30, 2008, 7:04 pm

    I don’t like Obama’s politics, but he appears to be a good man; Biden is barely tolerable, but he appears to be a good man; McCain is a grumpy old lech, who has caved in to the evangelical right; Palin scares me more than any candidate in a long, long time – including Huckabee.

    The Democratic Party scares me; the Republican party disgusts me; I don’t agree with either party on a majority of the issues; and the beat goes on and on.

    I have no confidence in the future of this country for the next four years no matter who wins, and the idea of the Democrats controlling all branches appalls me, but I also couldn’t reward the Republicans after the ludicrous last few years and how they have shredded the Constitution and absolutely butchered the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I plugged my nose with all my might, took Dramamine to control my retching and voted for Obama.

  • agardner October 30, 2008, 7:13 pm

    It’s really kind of sad that everyone is plugging their noses no matter who they vote for. I’ve only heard a few people who have been genuinely happy to vote for their candidate…and those few have been Obama supporters.

    I early voted last Saturday, for McCain. Yes, I plugged my nose while doing it.

  • Kathy October 30, 2008, 7:52 pm

    Well said Naismith! And yes, I’m genuinely happy to vote for Obama.

  • Lewis_Family October 30, 2008, 8:58 pm

    I don’t understand how people can so happily vote for someone who believes in legal “murder”… He tries to fancy pants his words around it, but he believes it is the woman’s choice, his past proves it. As far as I am concerned, this is the biggest issue ever in life, and that is that of life and Obama believes it’s ok to destroy it, and that I could never vote for.

  • TheWallruss October 30, 2008, 9:43 pm

    OK. First of all. Here I go putting my face in front of someones fist. But it will be worth it. πŸ™‚

    At least Mr. McCain has shown at one point in hes life that he is a Patriot. He may be a wee off center in some of his thinking, But he is an American who has served his country and is willing to honor our flag. Hes morals may be a wee out of line with us. Especially those of us that are LDS, but anyone who has seriously considered the Clinton’s has pushed that objection aside already. And as far as honesty goes Mr. Obama has seemingly been untrue about most everything he has presented to the public. Where he was born, when he was born, hes religious background, hes educational background and the list goes on. So if honesty is an issue ( I think it is part of the morality issue ) one must look deeper at him than just the surface. McCain is an old soldier, but at least he was a soldier, not a bad quality for the Commander and Chief. As a former member of the US Army Special Forces I would not under any circumstances want to serve under Barry Obama. (Barack being hes Muslim name)

    Now then I would like to throw one more thought out into the ring. Hold on to your seats because this is going to cause some serious congestion here in this forum.

    If I were a serious radical enemy of the United States and I wanted to bring war to its people, to its soil, to its very heart, how would I do it? I have already struck at them several times. They ( The US ) have always seemed to find a way to minimise the terror effects that I want to inflict. Even with the events of 911 they have seemed to twist things a wee be so it doesn’t look as bad as it really is. So I wrote them a letter and named for them nine major US cities that I plan to destroy with nuclear weapons. They laugh and think that I can not get those weapons into the country. Well, what if they ( the weapons ) were already here in the country? What if I did not need to get them into the country because they were already here by courtesy of the US Government? How about I plan far enough ahead to put someone who works for me in the White House and he, when the time arrives, has the power and authority to “push the button” and unleash the power of our own defence system on our own citizens? ( And anyone else out there who I have a beef with, like perhaps Israel and or maybe a few more )

    Pretty good science fiction story isn’t it. Or is it? Just a wee bit to chew on.

    McCain is not my first choice, but at this point I believe he is the lesser of two evils. Most of the moral issues have really never been an issue with the Presidents of the past. Not that most of them were any cleaner than McCain, they just never got caught or we just chose to look the other way. FDR had his handmaidens, Kennedy had more women that you can shake a stick at. Morality is very important, do not get me wrong. But love and loyalty to this, the United States of America is ultimately more at issue. If age is an issue then perhaps we need to talk to our Prophets about how old is to old. Age is really not an issue at all.

    However if Obama is elected, I think all is not lost….. Because as the drug addict or alcoholic must hit rock bottom before he or she finally realizes that it is time to clean up or die…Perhaps America is in that ugly black pit.

    Please vote. But please ponder long and hard about your vote.

    Thank you, all of you.

    Wally

  • delmar October 30, 2008, 9:52 pm

    Naismith. Ah.

    I will happily tell you that I am nicely bowing out of this conversation after this because of not wanting to GO OFF on peoples stupidity about our Military. You sign a contract, you go where you are told to go, you accept that fact when you give away your free agency to the us govt by serving them in uniform. I gave birth while my husband was deployed to Iraq. Sure it might not have been correct intel in the first place, and maybe we shouldn’t have gone over anyways, but trying to pull the whoa is me card on the poilitcal front because of someones supposed service to our country is not a good idea. I didn’t pull the whiney bs drama while my hubby was deployed and I won’t do it now when I could darn well vote for the lesser of 2 evils. Plug your nose, do whatever, but the military should NEVER admit defeat and just pull out. Get the country to a point where they can do it on their own and then leave.

  • TheWallruss October 30, 2008, 10:04 pm

    delmar:
    You are spot on. At this time it is an all volunteer military. And that includes the National Guard and Reserves. They volunteered, they took the money, they took the training and education. They did not cry about it then. No one forced this upon them. It is like becoming a life guard and then crying when I have to get my hair wet. It just will not fly.

    And speaking of flying. Obama flew home every Thursday night at what cost to the tax payer?

  • Amy E October 30, 2008, 10:11 pm

    Agreed, delmar. I’d forgotten that was one of the only reasons I wanted to vote for McCain because he’s the only current (meaning not including the primaries) presidential candidate that I know of (third party included) that consistently didn’t want to just pull our troops out before stabilizing the situation. Thanks for the reminder.

  • Ray October 30, 2008, 10:20 pm

    Wally, those are incredibly inflammatory charges. If you have some documentation or credible sources, please provide them. Otherwise, it’s no different than evangelicals voting against Romney because they are convinced he would take his orders from SLC and enforce Mormonism from the White House. Implying Obama is a Muslim plant who will facilitate the destruction of entire US cities is no different than implying Romney is a Mormon plant who will lead the US straight to Hell.

    Sources, please.

  • TheWallruss October 30, 2008, 10:25 pm

    Ray:

    Go out and get Barry’s books and read them. Read them oh so closely. Ponder upon them.

    Wally

  • facethemusic October 30, 2008, 10:33 pm

    McCain is not my first choice, but at this point I believe he is the lesser of two evils

    Agreed 100%. But the difference in levels of “evil” are monumental.
    Obama will allow the murder of millions of unborn babies and repeal all laws that restrict it in any form. Letting 12 year olds get abortions without their parents knowledge, letting doctors/nurses get fired and/or sued for morally objecting to performing them, etc.
    What prophets of God have declared to be inspired by God (our Constitution) he thinks should have been different from the beginning, and needs to be reworked. He wants to forcibly take what others work hard for, and give it to someone else out of “fairness”.
    (I’d love for the government to forcibly take some of Obama’s campaign funds and give them to McCain who doesn’t have as much and is struggling from behind, and see how much Obama likes living by his own socialist and ungodly ideas of “fairness”.)
    I’m absolutely repulsed by him– despite his “calm pleasantness” , incredible public speaking, and ability to inspire and get people to rally around him. It’s EXACTLY those qualities that are luring people to him– people who idealogically disagree with him are STILL voting for him– because they’re caught up in the “hope and change” rhetoric, even though they don’t realize where the “change” will take us–and that’s what repulses me.

  • Alison Moore Smith October 30, 2008, 11:36 pm

    Posted By: NaismithI hardly think that is what Obama is saying.

    You tell me what it means to “spread the wealth around” and to write more checks to people who don’t pay any taxes.

    Except that apparently Republicans only think rich people qualify for freebies.

    Oooo. Tell me what they are! I want some!

    It is obscene to me that my husband doesn’t have to pay social security tax the rest of the year. There is a cap on the amount of income that is taxable, and my husband passed it in September.

    First, why is it “obscene”?

    Second, the wage base is only $102,000 this year. Is that “rich” in you book?

    Third, the employer MATCHES the amount paid. Which basically means the employer can’t afford to pay YOU that much more in salary. Which means you really pay about 12.4% up to the wage base.

    Fourth, feel free to go ahead and contribute as much as you want to the Naismith Social Security Benefit Fund. At what point will you stop feeling obscene?

    I think that everyone should pay the same social security.

    “Same” meaning what?

    It is about people not dying from lack of health insurance (which happens every day in this country).

    I agree that health care needs some changes, but I do not believe government health care is remotely close.

    What is Obama’s plan to make sure every American gets all manner of health care no matter what it costs and not matter how much they can contribute to offset that?

    I’m looking at getting some lipo once he’s elected because, well, the “health of the mother” in this house is SO being damaged by my thighs.

    It is about young people being the first in their family to graduate from college.

    Oh, please. And how is Obama going to, I suppose, create college graduates?

    Let me tell you a story: anyone in America who able to handle the courseload can get a college degree today if they are willing to get off their duffs.

    How do I know? My husband got a PhD. On his own. With no help. With no parental support at all. His brother got a master’s degree the same way. One sister got a master’s degree and the other brother a bachelor’s degree.

    I was so impressed with the difference I saw in students who went to college on their own (like my roommate, who was an orphan), that we decided long ago that our children–should they choose to go to college–would do the same.

    My oldest daughter is in her fourth year of college. No debt.

    How did they do it without Barack??? How did they do it without taking money from some “rich” guy?

    It is about people being their brother’s keeper, just as we are instructed in scripture.

    Don’t even go there. Barack Obama made $4.2 million last year. He gave less than 5% of his income to charity. Biden gave less than 1%. (And both of those rates are UP from previous years.) Neither of them want to be their brother’s keepers. (You know how Obama’s brother lives, right?) They want to take OTHER people’s money and give it away–and then take credit for it.

    The scriptures don’t say a word about forced redistribution of OTHER people’s wages.

    My brother, a reservist who was called to active duty three times since 9/11, would not have had to endure the nightmare of Iraq if we had listened to Barack Obama about our ill-advised invasion of that country.

    The reservists I know read the contract before they signed. I assume your brother did as well?

    I don’t think he has lied.

    You’re right. He lied about his refusal to provide medical care to babies who survive BOTCHED abortions. He thinks it better that they just lie there until they die. He’s my hero.

    But I didn’t teach constitutional law at the University of Chicago for 12 years. Obama did.

    Ah. We’re too stupid to understand. He’s a genius. We must accept his expertise.

    Or maybe, it’s just plain evil to support partial-birth abortion.

    Although I agree with dems on some issues (I’m registered as unaffiliated), I simply cannot vote for anyone who supports abortion-on-demand, etc. It’s a deal-breaker to me all around. I find it to be the most morally vacant, hedonistic, evil position in politics today.

    And partial-birth abortion is so far beyond the pale as to make me stunned that anyone would ever vote for someone who supports it.

    Are we going to call people names, or discuss their policies?

    I vote for call names. Or just call a spade a spade.

    But if you’d like to explain how Obama’s declaration of a nuke free world is anything BUT foolish, I’m all ears.

    Here’s my take. As much as I dislike his political positions, he’s not an idiot. He knows that some kind of “call to disarm” is meaningless and ridiculous. But it DOES feed into a certain voter niche. And it DOES get some groups (like the 18-25 demographic who smoke weed) to say, “Yea, Obama is for peace and love just like me!” So, he panders friendly messages to certain demographics.

    Is he going to do it? No. But just like the Iraq pullout that he’s back-peddled on and his campaign money, he’ll say what it takes to get votes. Then it will be forgotten.

  • Alison Moore Smith October 30, 2008, 11:40 pm

    Look, I got two daughters 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.

    Barack Obama

  • TheWallruss October 31, 2008, 1:25 am

    Perhaps we should pass a law that….. the parents may terminate or revoke the life of any child within their legal care, and without fear of repercussion or legal ramification, for any reason they so desire, be it insufficient funds to care for said child, if said child is deemed a health risk to the parents, if said child is deemed an embarrassment to the parents , if said child is acting contrary to parents approval and/or counseling, and/or if for any reason they, the parents just do not want said child any longer. As long as said child is between the ages of conception and legalized age of adulthood, and is being supported by the parents and/or is living within the legal care of the parents, the parents have the legal and lawful right to dispose of said child. To abort and revoke said child’s privilege of life. From conception until the age of legalized adulthood life is a gift and privilege revocable by the parents, the givers of said gift or privilege of life.

    That would only be a minor adjustment to our currant laws on abortion.

    Hey, conception, six weeks in the womb, six mounts in the womb, sixteen years old. Tell me the difference. The child is either alive or no, and we either allow that child to live or no. What am I missing here?

    Wally

  • Naismith October 31, 2008, 5:19 am

    Let me tell you a story: anyone in America who able to handle the courseload can get a college degree today if they are willing to get off their duffs.

    This is like saying that since I got pregnant every time I tried, that anyone can get pregnant. (Which I would never say to anyone.)

    I think it’s great when people can put themselves through college. But does it mean everyone can? Do you really claim to know about the college costs in every state in the United States?

    Sadly, a lot of bright kids graduate from a high school that isn’t even accredited, and thus the college of their choice does not accept their application because they aren’t considered a high school graduate (the Detroit public schools struggled with this situation on and off for years). Others are devastated by medical bills. Others have to work to support their family, perhaps because a wage earner was laid off.

    There are all kinds of situations when financial aid would make a huge difference. It wouldn’t mean they wouldn’t be working their way through. In the 1960s when my older sibs were in school and there were need-based “national defense” scholarships available, those kids did not have an easy ride. It made college possible, not easy.

    Are you also opposed to the Perpetual Education Fund?

    One thing about Obama’s education policy: he supports much of No Child Left Behind and accountability in general. Thus the NEA endorsed Clinton while she was in the race, and endorsed Obama more slowly and reluctantly than any Democratic candidate in recent history. He is much more of a centrist on education policy than many in his party.

  • Naismith October 31, 2008, 5:24 am

    I will happily tell you that I am nicely bowing out of this conversation after this because of not wanting to GO OFF on peoples stupidity about our Military.

    I served in the Army. Other veterans, including Gen. Colin Powell, have endorsed Obama. To call us “stupid” is to disrespect our service.

    You sign a contract, you go where you are told to go, you accept that fact when you give away your free agency to the us govt by serving them in uniform.

    I totally understand that. But the contract is a two-way instrument; implicit in the contracts that my mom and dad and siblings signed when we enlisted was the understanding that young American lives would not be squandered on ill-advised adventurism. I think that in WWII this was honored, by not entering the war until our nation itself was attacked. The current administration reneged on their side of the deal when they invaded Iraq against the counsel of the United Naitons and against the teachings on when it is appropriate to go to war outlined in the Book of Mormon.

    I listened to President Nixon resign over armed forces radio in a chilly tent in the rain in Germany. It made a huge impact on me, emphasizing the importance of choosing a good commander in chief. No, we don’t have a say once that administration in place and tells us where to go. But we have a huge say during elections.

    Plug your nose, do whatever, but the military should NEVER admit defeat and just pull out.

    First of all, no candidate was proposing that we leave Iraq without a plan. It may not be the plan that all agree with, but it would be a considered, well thought-out plan.

    But also, the “NEVER admit defeat” sounds like pride to me. I don’t think the lives of thousands of young Americans are worth the pride of saying that we never admit defeat, even when such a course might be honest and appropriate.

    I appreciate your husband’s service and your sacrifice.

    Just because I don’t agree with you does not make me stupid. Just because I grieve over the unnecessary loss of young American lives does not mean I am whining.

  • Naismith October 31, 2008, 5:32 am

    First, why is it “obscene”?

    Because I think that I should pay the same as a janitor. If not, they end up subsidizing me when I retire. What about the good ‘ol American value of “equality”?

    Second, the wage base is only $102,000 this year. Is that “rich” in you book?

    It is more than twice the median US household income. It is certainly well off. I am sure it seems “rich” to some young struggling families dreaming about buying their first home.

    Third, the employer MATCHES the amount paid.

    And maybe if employers had to MATCH the entire compensation of executive salaries, we wouldn’t have corporate execs earning multibillions while their company goes under and shareholders suffer.

    Yes, we do give a lot to charity to make up for the unfairness. But I still would like the system to be more equitable. Even though I benefit from it, I don’t agree with it.

  • facethemusic October 31, 2008, 5:50 am

    Mormon progressivism at it’s finest…. yipee.

  • jennycherie October 31, 2008, 6:04 am

    Posted By: NaismithOthers are devastated by medical bills. Others have to work to support their family, perhaps because a wage earner was laid off.

    but the government can’t solve those problems. The government is not the solution to every problem.

    Posted By: NaismithThere are all kinds of situations when financial aid would make a huge difference.

    I guess I don’t understand – isn’t financial aid already available? Most of my students are on financial aid and scholarships.

    Posted By: Naismithhe Perpetual Education Fund?

    The Perpetual Education Fund is not a government program. It’s a church program. Churches and charities should be helping with these things. The government should not.

  • angcarrig October 31, 2008, 8:44 am

    Obama scares me too!

    Those who are happy to vote for Obama – Why? Why are you happy to vote for him? Why will McCain votes include nose-holding and Obama votes include joyous zeal?

    He has remarkable talent, and he’s got a steady character (this last one is funny considering most people voting for him first heard of him about a year ago). That’s what I’ve heard here, and that’s what I hear everywhere. But I don’t understand why those two things, if they are actually true, equal squeals of joy at the voting booths.

  • Alison Moore Smith October 31, 2008, 9:34 am

    Posted By: NaismithThis is like saying that since I got pregnant every time I tried, that anyone can get pregnant. (Which I would never say to anyone.)

    It’s nothing like it. As I said, if someone can handle the coursework, they can do it. You show me otherwise.

    Here was my husband’s plan:
    Work part-time during school. Work full-time May-August doing just about anything he could (including sales jobs, labor jobs, etc.). Come back from mission, get his at together. Retake classes, pull up GPA. Get scholarships. Get assistanceships. Work year-round. Scrimp and save. Use coupons. Live in cheap housing. Freelance on the side.

    Here was my brother-in-law’s plan:
    Work part-time during school. Work full-time from May-August servicing swamp coolers. Hours: 6:00 am to 8:00, sweaty and grimy and utterly unpleasant. Scrimp and save. Eat a lot of ramen. Live in cheap housing. Don’t go out much unless it’s free.

    Here is my daughter’s plan:
    Gain some sought-after skills in high school. Work part-time during school. Work full-time from May-August. Scrimp and save. Eat a lot of ramen. Live in cheap housing. Don’t go out much unless it’s free…or a date pays.

    Here is one of her roommates plans:
    Work part-time. Go to hair school. Graduate. Put herself through college working as a stylist.

    Here is my nephew’s plan:
    Join the reserves.

    Here was one of my roommates plans:
    Gain some secretarial skills. Work part-time during school. Work full-time in the spring/summer. Live very frugally.

    All of the people above went to BYU. There are hundreds and hundreds of community colleges, local schools, etc., that are equally affordable and accessible. I have a niece and nephew (brother and sister) whose high school grades were nothing to flaunt and who were not known for their academic work. They are from out-of-state. Both were accepted at Dixie College (in St. George) and have supported themselves through school. One of our employees went to Provo College and graduated at the top of her class in accounting, putting herself through school after she had three kids. I have a friend who worked full-time and went to night school to get a BS and then an MS. Another worked full-time AND went to school full-time. Two friends of mine took as many classes as they could afford, while working, and slowly progressed toward their degrees in about six years, taking time off to save money and regroup. I know a number of people who got accredited degrees through distance learning (such as BYU’s Continuing Education Department, where my mother worked when I was a teenager (and where Jessica worked as a webmaster during her freshman year).

    Need I go on?

    But does it mean everyone can? Do you really claim to know about the college costs in every state in the United States?

    In every state? Well, yes. It’s not that hard to look up, Naismith. And people actually can choose to go to a more affordable state if they, well, are willing to pack a bag and take a bus.

    Can everyone afford Harvard with no help? No. Can they afford a sound college degree? Sure. But they might actually have to work hard.

    Sadly, a lot of bright kids graduate from a high school that isn’t even accredited, and thus the college of their choice does not accept their application because they aren’t considered a high school graduate

    So what? My kids are homeschooled. They don’t graduate from an accredited high school either. Makes no difference at all. How do you think non-traditional students enroll in college? They do it all the time.

    And who says people have a right to attend “the college of their choice”?

    They simply have the OPPORTUNITY to work their back-sides off, live poor, and study until the wee hours. If they feel like it.

    There are all kinds of situations when financial aid would make a huge difference. …In the 1960s when my older sibs were in school and there were need-based “national defense” scholarships available, those kids did not have an easy ride. It made college possible, not easy.

    First of all, there IS financial aid available. All over the place. Second, you don’t NEED financial aid in order to graduate from college. Even though we aren’t paying her way, my daughter doesn’t qualify for aid (in the form of grants) because we make too much. They don’t CARE that she is an adult and independent. She wrote an essay on this site about that very issue. Aid would make it easier. Lack of aid doesn’t make it impossible.

    Are you also opposed to the Perpetual Education Fund?

    Since I contribute to it regularly, I don’t suppose I oppose it. But you might have noticed, it’s VOLUNTARY. Maybe you can recommend the PEF to Barack. I’m sure he’s looking for a place to stash his millions.

  • Alison Moore Smith October 31, 2008, 10:16 am

    Posted By: NaismithBecause I think that I should pay the same as a janitor.

    Explain this to me. Are you saying that a janitor is paying MORE than you? Seriously, let’s pull some numbers out here.

    Let’s say you make $110,000, just above the $102,000 cap. You pay $6324 annually.

    Let’s say the janitor makes $23,839 (median janitorial income as of July 2008), s/he pays $1478.

    How exactly is the latter more than the former?

    If not, they end up subsidizing me when I retire.

    And are you saying that “the rich” are pulling in MORE in SS benefits than the janitor. And, if so, where does this money come from–considering “the rich” put more in in the first place. Let’s pull some actual numbers into the game here.

    What about the good ‘ol American value of “equality”?

    Equality of what? The good ol’ American value of equality is that we were CREATED equal. Not that we have some other, man-made, government enforced income-equality, education-equality, intelligence-equality, metabolism-equality. But I’m all for legislation to mandate that last one. Bring it on.

    It is more than twice the median US household income. It is certainly well off. I am sure it seems “rich” to some young struggling families dreaming about buying their first home

    .

    I’m asking you to be clear about what “the rich” means. It’s the nebulous term that mostly promotes class envy. Yea, when we had two kids and made $14,000 per year and were still struggling through college, $20,000 seemed “rich” to me, too. But I didn’t try to base the country’s fiscal policy on that perspective. And, interestingly, I didn’t vote for entitlements even though we lived well below the poverty level.

    And maybe if employers had to MATCH the entire compensation of executive salaries, we wouldn’t have corporate execs earning multibillions while their company goes under and shareholders suffer.

    So. And maybe if you had to MATCH your computer for everyone on the planet, you’d have less computers.

    You know what I think? I think that if someone starts a company, and risks their own time, resources, and livelihood trying to create a viable business, they should darn well able to pay themselves whatever the heck they want to. I don’t care if it’s bazillion dollars. Most businesses fail. Most people aren’t WILLING to start their own businesses BECAUSE of the risks involved.

    If you WORK for someone else, you aren’t the boss. You didn’t take the risk, the boss did. So if the boss–who took the risk–decided to make dumb decisions and run the company aground, he’s pretty much the guy who earned the right to do so.

    If you invest in a company, there are risks in trying to get PASSIVE income. If you don’t read the prospectus and if you aren’t willing to take the much higher risk inherent in stock investing, you shouldn’t be doing so. It’s not an all uphill game.

    I’m all for prosecuting companies that lie to investors. I’m all for absolute adherence to regulations and accountability. But as for those who won’t take the risks whining about high salaries, it’s just bogus. Unless you want to start subsidizing all those “poor folks” who lose their shirts trying to be entrepreneurs.

    Of course, this is why I’m utterly opposed to bailouts. First, it places the burden of risk on taxpayers–who are not in a position to benefit. Second, because the government is utterly useless as real enterprise.

    Yes, we do give a lot to charity to make up for the unfairness. But I still would like the system to be more equitable.

    What do you think would be more equitable? I think the system is highly problematic and would appreciate input on that.

    It is, I think, interesting to note that conservatives give more than liberals. Significantly more. So who really “cares” about their brother? Here are some notes from this article:

    — Although liberal families’ incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

    — Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

    — Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

    — Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

    — In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

    — People who reject the idea that “government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality” give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

  • delmar October 31, 2008, 10:23 am

    Posted By: Naismith

    I will happily tell you that I am nicely bowing out of this conversation after this because of not wanting to GO OFF on peoples stupidity about our Military.

    I served in the Army. Other veterans, including Gen. Colin Powell, have endorsed Obama. To call us “stupid” is to disrespect our service.

    You sign a contract, you go where you are told to go, you accept that fact when you give away your free agency to the us govt by serving them in uniform.

    I totally understand that. But the contract is a two-way instrument; implicit in the contracts that my mom and dad and siblings signed when we enlisted was the understanding that young American lives would not be squandered on ill-advised adventurism. I think that in WWII this was honored, by not entering the war until our nation itself was attacked. The current administration reneged on their side of the deal when they invaded Iraq against the counsel of the United Naitons and against the teachings on when it is appropriate to go to war outlined in the Book of Mormon.

    I listened to President Nixon resign over armed forces radio in a chilly tent in the rain in Germany. It made a huge impact on me, emphasizing the importance of choosing a good commander in chief. No, we don’t have a say once that administration in place and tells us where to go. But we have a huge say during elections.

    Plug your nose, do whatever, but the military should NEVER admit defeat and just pull out.

    First of all, no candidate was proposing that we leave Iraq without a plan. It may not be the plan that all agree with, but it would be a considered, well thought-out plan.

    But also, the “NEVER admit defeat” sounds like pride to me. I don’t think the lives of thousands of young Americans are worth the pride of saying that we never admit defeat, even when such a course might be honest and appropriate.

    I appreciate your husband’s service and your sacrifice.

    Just because I don’t agree with you does not make me stupid. Just because I grieve over the unnecessary loss of young American lives does not mean I am whining.

    Hense why I am pulling out of this conversation, but I can’t entirely. Don’t you love how people can twist and turn anything you want to fit your socialist agenda. Oh I mean Obamas. I never saw the “ill adviced adventurism” part of the military contract. Hum…maybe because its not there. Oh and todays military…meaning anyone serving RECENTLY is a whole new type of military. Honestly it changes on a day to day basis. I didn’t say its stupid to vote for Obama. I don’t think that people are educated about our military and how things work…and how pulling out WOULDN’T work. I think people who are uninformed and think just packing up our crud in Iraq an leaving and “Bringing our boys home” would be the best idea…are stupid. Yes, I’m name calling and judging. (lightning rod!….nope not struck down yet) I’m sure my uncle who died would love to say something, but he can’t. Neither can our friends who died. Did I ever say I wasn’t grieving? Trust me I cry every day at the thought of my brother dying and over the fact that we lost good close friend and several came back…but barely, and some have ruined their marriages and families because of horrible ptsd. My brother is leaving in January for Afghanistan, hes WELL informed of why hes going. Oh wait, because he signed a contract to serve his country and he follows orders and gets paid crappy wages to do such. Why? Because he’ll salute the flag, sing the national anthem, wear a freaking flag pin and be a PATRIOT! Nothing I see in Obamas past, present or future makes me think he is a PATRIOT. My opinion. Yes I know we went over this before…but its really irritating me today.

    What I do think is stupid….his stance on marriage and abortion. Oh and several other things.

    My favorite saying right now: Too bad Democrats don’t hate ABORTION & TERRORISM as much as they hate George Bush!

    AMEN!

  • delmar October 31, 2008, 10:26 am

    Oh and fwiw admitting defeat it pretty much negotiating with terrorists….something the USA doesn’t do. Not pride…safety.

  • Alison Moore Smith October 31, 2008, 1:23 pm

    Here are my two burning lunch-time questions for Obama supporters:

    (1) How does a call for no nuclear weapons classify as a “wise” (i.e. “not foolish”) defense policy?

    (2) How is someone who refuses care to botched abortion survivors (read that: dying babies, not to be confused with mere tissue blobs and/or “fetuses”) and who supports partial-birth abortion (D&X) moral or qualified as a leader?

  • delmar October 31, 2008, 3:01 pm

    right there with ya alison.

  • Naismith October 31, 2008, 6:04 pm

    It’s nothing like it. As I said, if someone can handle the coursework, they can do it. You show me otherwise.

    At the university where I work, there is an undergraduate scholarship program for qualified young people who will be the first college graduate in their family. Our president is adamant at keeping that program funded, despite massive layoffs of staff, and even some faculty. Why is he refusing to cut that program? Because followup interviews with applicants have found that if those people don’t get that money, they often don’t go to college. Need-based programs are rare where we live.

    Here was my husband’s plan:

    Well, I could share my own plan, because I also put myself through two degrees. I just don’t agree with you that my own success means that anyone can do it.

    I know lots of young people who have similar plans, and it doesn’t work out so well for them. One of my daughter’s friends had a plan to get an RN at the community college, then work to put herself through a bachelor’s degree. What happened is that she got sick the third semester, got flunked out, and had major issues getting readmitted.

    And lots of people have their own plans, that didn’t work out so well.

    All of the people above went to BYU.

    You do realize that some years ago BYU made a decision to offer a “minimum wage” to student employees that is far above the legal minimum wage, in order to facilitate people working their way through? I’m not sure that is the best example. It isn’t typical. When some CES person mentioned this in a talk, it created a lot of discussion among the young folks at Institute.

    There are hundreds and hundreds of community colleges, local schools, etc., that are equally affordable and accessible.

    It isn’t always as easy and clearcut as you are making out. Maybe the economy is strong where you are, but not everywhere, and has had a devastating impact on many young people trying to go to college.

    I know of young people who opted for the affordable community college rather than starting right at a more expensive (but still moderate for a U) four-year school. Only to find out that their straight As in community college no longer guaranteed them admittance to the state U to which they’d been accepted two years earlier, since that U could now have their pick of National Merit Scholars whose families couldn’t afford an ivy league education. So that left the AA grad having to go elsewhere, less affordable and taking out loans or forever, at a school that doesn’t have the major they were working toward.

    I have a niece and nephew (brother and sister) whose high school grades were nothing to flaunt and who were not known for their academic work. They are from out-of-state. Both were accepted at Dixie College (in St. George) and have supported themselves through school.

    I’m really impressed, because out-of-state tuition at Dixie is incredibly expensive. (Or did they just lie and give a family member’s address to get the in-state rate?)

    In every state? Well, yes. It’s not that hard to look up, Naismith. And people actually can choose to go to a more affordable state if they, well, are willing to pack a bag and take a bus.

    This isn’t true, of course. Many states will not allow one to become a resident for tuition purposes if you “pack a bag” for that reason, even working for a year or more at a local job. When I left Michigan to serve in the military, and wanted to attend school there after discharge, I was not considered a resident for tuition purposes, and never would be reclassified. Nice bit of gratitude for my service. Thankfully, legislation has made an exception for servicepeople.

    Can they afford a sound college degree? Sure. But they might actually have to work hard.

    This is so ugly. My daughter’s friend was working hard, which is likely why she became sick and got into trouble.

    So what? My kids are homeschooled. They don’t graduate from an accredited high school either. Makes no difference at all.

    This isn’t true. At my university, there is an admissions officer assigned just to homeschoolers, and they have different criteria for admission. Some universities have an entirely different application form for homeschoolers. Whereas someone who submits a standard application with a diploma (from a non-accredited school) doesn’t get to take that track.

    Since I contribute to [PEF] regularly, I don’t suppose I oppose it.

    Well, I am glad we agree on something. But shouldn’t those people be “working their backsides off” instead of getting a handout from the church? I think it is a hand up, and I’m happy to provide it, and to offer the same to other deserving young people.

  • Naismith October 31, 2008, 6:11 pm

    Explain this to me. Are you saying that a janitor is paying MORE than you?

    Yes, they are paying more of their income than I am.

    Seriously, let’s pull some numbers out here.

    Let’s say you make $110,000, just above the $102,000 cap. You pay $6324 annually.

    That’s 5.7%.

    Let’s say the janitor makes $23,839 (median janitorial income as of July 2008), s/he pays $1478.

    That’s 6.2%.

    The janitor is paying more. And the gap would be even wider, the higher above the cap. I think that is unfair.

    People can make however they much they want. Go for it. Just pay taxes on it.

  • Naismith October 31, 2008, 6:35 pm

    About abortion: That used to be my litmus test, too, until I started spending a lot of time in the pro-life movement. I was a volunteer counselor in a pro-life counseling center that helped pregnant women find workable alternatives to abortion, and for a summer I was acting director. I participated in various rallies and such for pro-life groups.

    I felt good about my contributions, but was treated very badly by others in those groups (I’ve written about it elsewhere). They looked down on Mormons as being pro-choice because of our church’s inspired policy toward abortion. It kind of cooled my fervor about pro-life candidates. Also, while I appreciate the evil of abortion, I am not convinced it outranks all other evils, such as the evil of the 12-year-old Maryland boy who died of a toothache because his family couldn’t find a dentist to accept Medicaid, or those convicts who were executed and later proven innocent, and so on. There is a lot of evil to be fought.

    If this election were only about abortion, of course I would vote against abortion. But that is not what this election is about. It’s about leadership on a wide variety of issues.

    It would be easier to make the decision by just looking at that one issue. But I honestly think that all the various policies and issues deserve consideration.

    Yes, I’ve made a decision that is different from many of you. Does that make me stupid or evil or a bad latter-day saint?

    No. I am a disciple of Jesus Christ. I have a firm testimony of the Atonement, and of the restored gospel. I serve wherever the Lord needs me, and I try to live up to my temple covenants daily. For me, I feel that voting for Obama is the best choice I can make in this election. If you choose differently, I am not going to call you stupid. I had hoped to have the same respectful treatment, but oh well.

    If you enjoy putting me down, well, I am glad to have been of service to you ladies.

  • spande2 October 31, 2008, 7:37 pm

    On getting a college degree: I have a “foster” brother from Vietnam. He lived with my family for several years, while I was in my teens. Then his family escaped from Vietnam as “boat people” and were able to relocate to the town next to ours. This boy went to BYU. His room-mate, a black young man from Brazil, was at BYU on a “Lamanite” scholarship and didn’t have to work at all. My brother paid his own way through school, working full time, supported his family while going to school and working, got good grades and stayed out of debt. Then he went back to California and started his career as an accountant. He is still supporting his mother and father. He practically raised his younger sister, because his parents were not equipped to deal with teen life in the U.S..

    As Alison said (sort of) where there’s a will there’s a way. There are grants, loans, you name it. We don’t need more options. We just need more motivated people.

  • spande2 October 31, 2008, 8:11 pm

    http://iperceive.net/dont-screw-us-vote-mccain/
    You can look at this and decide if you want to post it here. I’m sure Ray will hate it. (I have to tell you, Ray scares me. He is so patronizing and…I probably shouldn’t say any more.)

    Sorry I didn’t come back I would have enjoyed visiting with you, but Katie wanted to see your girls and that was easier because I had promised my nephew dinner and cinnamon rolls and that took me until bedtime to finish.

    Would you be interested in lunch (or dinner) with me? Or lunch (or dinner) with Michelle Linford and me? Which would you prefer? Or would you prefer neither? Or we could invite Michelle to a park and bring all the kids and visit while the kids play.

  • Kathy October 31, 2008, 8:44 pm

    Hi,
    I ?m Kathy ?s husband, and I wanted to represent those happy ? to vote for Obama. Now, before you start conjuring up images of me doing the victory dance through the halls of your local abortion clinic, know that I think abortion is a horrible choice. Is my moral conviction somehow at odds with my political philosophy? No. I expect Government to protect the freedoms that allow us to exercise our ethical and moral imperatives. All choices that are not aligned with the gospel of Jesus Christ should be lamented, and yet free agency is such a fundamental requirement of mortality that we rejected compulsory salvation as an alternative. So I believe that I may support choice as a principle knowing it may result in the sin of abortion in the same way I can accept free agency as a principle even though many of the choices such agency brings will separate us from God.

    So yes, I will proudly vote for Obama. I will vote for him because of the caliber of people he has surrounded himself with; the way he has handled himself during the campaign; and his measured, thoughtful, and diplomatic approach to complex world problems. I will vote for Obama because I served my country and wore the uniform of a soldier, and I want my brother in arms to come home. Neither Obama nor I are any less patriotic for sharing this point of view. I am excited at the prospect of an Obama administration, and how we might start to heal so many of the social, political, environmental, and global ills we currently suffer from.

  • TheWallruss October 31, 2008, 9:02 pm

    Kathy’s Husband:

    You have the right to your opinion and the right to agency. No one here is trying to deny you those rights. You also have the right to make huge mistakes. Like voting for Obama. He has pulled the wool over many a good and decent persons eyes. I find it sad, But that is just the way it is. By the by he will, in my opinion bring our brothers is arms home, only to bring the fight with them to this, the American soil and make every man, woman and child in this country a combatant. That is my opinion. I guess we will just have to wait and see what comes to pass.

    Wally

  • spande2 October 31, 2008, 9:03 pm

    Kathy’s husband: What about my free-agency not to pay for state-funded murder and the free-agency of doctors to choose not to participate in it?

  • facethemusic October 31, 2008, 10:30 pm

    I

    am not convinced it outranks all other evils, such as the evil of the 12-year-old Maryland boy who died of a toothache because his family couldn’t find a dentist to accept Medicaid, or those convicts who were executed and later proven innocent, and so on.

    What a bunch of absolute baloney!!!
    Tell me this honestly — do you REALLY BELIEVE this boy died because his parents couldn’t find a dentist who accepts Medicaid????? The SAME ARTICLE said that an 80 dollar extraction would have stopped the infection from spreading to his brain– which was the actual cause of his death. If all my kid needed was an 80 dollar extraction and I couldn’t afford 80 dollars, I’d make payments, I’d borrow from a friend or relative, I wouldn’t let him go for months and months with a toothache.
    First, at only 12 years old he had 6 teeth that were so rotted that they all needed to be extracted. His brother had 9 that needed to be extracted. We’re not just talking about cavities here– we’re talking about teeth that are SOOO rotted out that they need to be pulled out. That’s not a “medicaid” problem, that’s a hygiene problem. Something tells me that tooth brushing wasn’t a high priority in this home in the first place.
    Second, the family went through periods of homelessness, lived in a shelter for awhile, had repeated periods of phone service being shut off, etc and lost their Medicaid benefits because (they suspect) that paperwork wasn’t keeping up with the family’s changing address.
    Third- despite the family’s complaint that they couldn’t find a dentist that accepts Medicaid– the state’s Medicaid program said that of the 92 dentists in the county, they pay Medicaid claims to 78 of them. That’s an awfully high percentage that take Medicaid. And there are near to 50,000 kids on Medicaid in that county ALONE. Besides which, at the time of her son’s problem, his Medicaid had lapsed because they didn’t know where the family was. So how is it Medicaid’s fault??
    Lastly, and maybe more importantly—- there’s a HUGE message here.
    Wake up people… Medicaid is GOVERNMENT HEALTHCARE!!!!
    Hello? You want universal healthcare run by the government???? THAT’S what you’re going to get—- in essence— MEDICAID.

  • angcarrig October 31, 2008, 11:06 pm

    Thanks Kathy’s husband.

    I suppose if you don’t consider abortion to be murder, even the kind of radical abortion Obama supports that most other Democrats do not, then I can see why it wouldn’t bother you when you vote for Obama. I agree that he has been very smooth throughout the campaign, but I thought that the advisors and people he has associated with, in addition to the questions regarding his past, were liabilities rather than assets. I wouldn’t call Obama unpatriotic for opposing the war in Iraq. Not at all.

  • Ray October 31, 2008, 11:21 pm

    Just for the record, the Church does not consider abortion to be murder – at least not in the way that some blanket statements here are making it sound like murder in every case.

    Please don’t over-analyze that statement; I simply want to point out that by saying Obama’s support of abortion rights means he supports murder is a position I don’t want to take – especially since it’s the exact same charge the most hardcore evangelicals make against us. The Church supports abortion rights, and I’m not about to say the Church supports murder.

  • Lewis_Family October 31, 2008, 11:51 pm

    This is a legitimate question, so please don’t take this as me trying to fuel a fire or poke it or whatever. What exactly is the church’s stance on abortion, do they have a time frame on it, because the “murder” that I know that Obama doesn’t fight against and allows is the type where babies are forcibly born and then left to die, so I am just wondering how the church actually words their acceptance to abortion.

  • Lewis_Family October 31, 2008, 11:52 pm

    Now for a devil moment :devil: the church advocate murder in a sense, we tell the story of Nephi and Laban… sometimes it is justifiable, so yes…

  • facethemusic November 1, 2008, 12:17 am

    I simply want to point out that by saying Obama’s support of abortion rights means he supports murder is a position I don’t want to take

    Okay then–I’ll take it. His support and promise to enact FOCA means he supports murder. It isn’t cancer ridden, on-their-deathbed women who are having the 1.3 MILLION abortions every year JUST in the United States. From 1973 to 2000 over 39,000,000 abortions were performed and 1.3 million MORE every year on average over the past several years.

    And you’re on shaky ground saying the Church supports abortion rights. Especially within the context of a discussion about Obama– who is RADICAL in his support of “abortion rights”. The Church does NOT support “abortion rights” in the way people interpret that terminology. It ONLY supports it in the extremist of cases and even THEN cautions that its such a serious matter that you better darn well know for sure and have confirmation from God above that you’re doing the right thing.

    Those aren’t the exact words of course– I can print them word for word from the CHI if you want.

  • Alison Moore Smith November 1, 2008, 1:05 am

    Posted By: Naismith Because followup interviews with applicants have found that if those people don’t get that money, they often don’t go to college. Need-based programs are rare where we live.

    LOL Well, that doesn’t mean they COULDN’T, does it? I understand that if you GIVE someone money to attend college, you’ll have more people deciding to go. Most of the time commodities run that way. If I give away cars, more people will have them. If I give away houses, more people will have them. Yea, we get that.

    But I’m sure you realize that my point was that those people who “often don’t go to college” COULD manage it if they were willing to sacrifice the same things that those who do NOT get this assistance (like all those I mentioned, including my husband and my daughter) are willing to sacrifice to do it.

    Well, I could share my own plan, because I also put myself through two degrees. I just don’t agree with you that my own success means that anyone can do it.

    I didn’t say anyone can do it. I said anyone who can handle the coursework can do it. But “can” and “will” are not the same thing.

    What happened is that she got sick the third semester, got flunked out, and had major issues getting readmitted.

    Yea, if someone gets sicks (or dies or ?) then they can’t “handle the coursework,” can they? And “major issues” isn’t the same as “no possible option.” I know lots of people who’ve had to temporarily withdraw from school for medical reasons and few of them were banned from campus forever. Most admissions departments realize that people, for example, get really sick, get in auto accidents, etc. If your friend’s particular college doesn’t have a grasp of that, she should look elsewhere. Most have a probation system in place for those who need to rehabilitate their GPAs.

    You do realize that some years ago BYU made a decision to offer a “minimum wage” to student employees that is far above the legal minimum wage, in order to facilitate people working their way through? I’m not sure that is the best example. It isn’t typical.

    Yes, although I don’t know about “far above.” When I went to college minimum wage was $3.35 and BYU wages were $4.40. As a percentage that’s not bad, but as far as supporting a family, it’s not much either way.

    But that is really beside the point, since most of those I mentioned didn’t work at BYU anyway. My husband’s assistanceships were at BYU. His other jobs weren’t. My daughter has worked on campus during the year and off-campus during the summer (such as at Disney Studios in Burbank this past summer, etc.). None of the rest of them worked on campus except for one of my roommates, part of the time. And those I mentioned who went to other schools obviously didn’t work at BYU either.

    It isn’t always as easy and clearcut as you are making out. Maybe the economy is strong where you are, but not everywhere, and has had a devastating impact on many young people trying to go to college.

    Please. It’s not about the economy. It’s about priorities. Whether markets are up or down there are people who go to great lengths to get an education and others who don’t. When my husband was a professor, it was like pulling teeth to get Americans to stay for graduate school. EVEN WHEN they were offered scholarships. They wanted to get out and make “real money,” not struggle for years. Some think it’s worth the effort, some don’t. But there are few barriers for someone who is willing to sacrifice OTHER THINGS for an education.

    Please note, I’m not suggesting that this SHOULD be a priority for anyone. It’s a choice. But the choice is there for most anyone who can do the academic work.

    My dad is a good example of this, too. He got his PhD in 1968–when he was 39 years old. He did it while raising four kids, while serving as a bishop, on his own, a bit at a time, working in between.

    I’m really impressed, because out-of-state tuition at Dixie is incredibly expensive. (Or did they just lie and give a family member’s address to get the in-state rate?)

    It’s incredibly cute to suggest that someone you don’t even know must have lied. Or maybe just incredibly dumb. But either way, they happened to both have worked very hard. Both have taken off multiple semesters to save up tuition. My nephew works as a gardener year round.

    Another niece (from a different sister-in-law) also attended Dixie (also from out of state) by first getting her dental hygienist license to pay her way on more than minimum wage.

    This isn’t true, of course. Many states will not allow one to become a resident for tuition purposes if you “pack a bag” for that reason, even working for a year or more at a local job.

    It’s only “not true” because you assume that I’m talking only about qualifying for in-state tuition and/or that I’m only talking about state schools. Neither of which is true.

    This is so ugly.

    Truth is an ugly thing.

    Posted By: Alison Moore Smith So what? My kids are homeschooled. They don’t graduate from an accredited high school either. Makes no difference at all.

    Posted By: NaismithThis isn’t true.

    Naismith, there are myriad ways that non-traditional students enter college and almost no schools that don’t have a path for them. They come from homeschooling, from other countries, from older students returning, from GED kids, and from non-accredited schools, etc. They just work with you a little differently. It’s no big deal and it’s not a show-stopper in any sense of the word.

    If you have friends who graduated from an unaccredited high school and can’t get into college, have them give me a call. And no, I’m not kidding. They’ve just either gotten really bad advice or been way too quick to give up. Or both.

    Well, I am glad we agree on something. But shouldn’t those people be “working their backsides off” instead of getting a handout from the church? I think it is a hand up, and I’m happy to provide it, and to offer the same to other deserving young people.

    Yes, they should all be “working their backsides off.” But who said there was a problem with giving assistance? As I said, there is TONS of assistance available. (You might notice that one of my philanthropic dreams is to create four perpetual scholarships.) My problem is with (1) Obama setting up a taxpayer funded assistance package and (2) claims that people CAN’T go to college without such programs.

    Besides, who is more “deserving”: the person willing to work their backside off or the person whining that s/he isn’t getting enough help from the government to make all their dreams come true?

  • Alison Moore Smith November 1, 2008, 1:25 am

    Posted By: NaismithThe janitor is paying more. And the gap would be even wider, the higher above the cap. I think that is unfair.

    The janitor isn’t paying more. The janitor is paying a higher percentage of his total income. I understand that you probably know that, but the wording is misleading. So, you think it would be fine if there were not wage cap? Is the wage cap associated with a payout cap?

    Sincerely, I know little about the payout side, since I don’t plan on it being there. But I assume there is a maximum payout, in which case setting a wage cap makes perfect sense…and means that the janitor is NOT subsidizing Mr. Rich, but the other way around.

  • Alison Moore Smith November 1, 2008, 1:42 am

    Posted By: NaismithAbout abortion: That used to be my litmus test, too,

    The implication that abortion is my litmus test is too strong, I think. It’s not THE way I make my decision, because, fortunately, sometimes I actually get to choose between two candidates who actually both oppose abortion-on-demand. But lots of the time is does eliminate a candidate for me. And the fact that the democrat platform supports it will keep me from far away from that party and most of its candidates.

    until I started spending a lot of time in the pro-life movement…I felt good about my contributions, but was treated very badly by others in those groups (I’ve written about it elsewhere).

    Wait, so you decided that abortion wasn’t such a big deal BECAUSE you were treated poorly by pro-lifers?

    Also, while I appreciate the evil of abortion, I am not convinced it outranks all other evils, such as the evil of the 12-year-old Maryland boy who died of a toothache because his family couldn’t find a dentist to accept Medicaid,

    Seriously? A boy dies of an infection and can’t afford to cure it. That is AS BAD as sticking scissors into a baby’s skull? SERIOUSLY????

    or those convicts who were executed and later proven innocent, and so on.

    I agree that execution can harm innocent people and that such situations can’t be tolerated. But let’s look at the reality here.

    The horror of execution is that either a huge mistake is made by the people with the best of intentions, trying to bring justice for the most heinous of crimes OR some corrupt people cause an evil situation by framing an innocent person.

    The PURPOSE of abortion is to kill the most innocent and helpless people who are inconvenient.

    Are these really in any way on par with each other?

    If this election were only about abortion, of course I would vote against abortion. But that is not what this election is about.

    A man who supports partial-birth abortion and who refuses aid to dying babies from botched abortions is evil. Period. In fact, I can think of no one who is more evil that someone who promotes the killing of babies. This election is about electing someone to lead our country. An evil person never, ever fits the bill.

  • Alison Moore Smith November 1, 2008, 1:44 am

    I’d love to have lunch with you! I’m not sure Michelle would love to have lunch with me, though.

    Maybe we could have a local MM lunch somewhere. πŸ™‚

  • Alison Moore Smith November 1, 2008, 2:11 am

    Posted by: Kathy’s husbandAll choices that are not aligned with the gospel of Jesus Christ should be lamented, and yet free agency is such a fundamental requirement of mortality that we rejected compulsory salvation as an alternative. So I believe that I may support choice as a principle knowing it may result in the sin of abortion in the same way I can accept free agency as a principle even though many of the choices such agency brings will separate us from God.

    If you tolerate sucking out babies’ brains in the name of “agency,” then I certainly hope you are a strict libertarian! Otherwise the argument is incredibly vapid.

    So yes, I will proudly vote for Obama. I will vote for him because of the caliber of people he has surrounded himself with

    :shocked: Like Jeremmiah Wright? William Ayers? Tony Rezko? Or maybe it’s NARAL? or Planned Parenthood?

    his measured, thoughtful, and diplomatic approach to complex world problems.

    Like to call for a ban on nukes?

    I am excited at the prospect of an Obama administration, and how we might start to heal so many of the social, political, environmental, and global ills we currently suffer from.

    Could you give us some examples of the ills he will heal… and HOW he’ll do it?

  • Alison Moore Smith November 1, 2008, 2:40 am

    BTW, Obama has committed to pass the Freedom of Choice Act, as seen in one of the vids I linked to. To be clear, FOCA: nullifies all federal and state laws that limit abortion.

    The House bill was introduced by Congressman Jerrold Nadler who said, “FOCA would bar government ?- at any level — from interfering with a woman’s fundamental right to choose to bear a child, or to terminate a pregnancy.”

    The Senate Bill was introduced by Senator Barbara Boxer. She’s the one, remember, who would only concede that a baby becomes a baby when it GOES HOME FROM THE HOSPITAL.

    Add these two to the list of elected officials actively promoting evil.

    I’m still looking for answer to my lunchtime questions!

    (1) How does a call for no nuclear weapons classify as a “wise” (i.e. “not foolish”) defense policy?

    (2) How is someone who refuses care to botched abortion survivors (read that: dying babies, not to be confused with mere tissue blobs and/or “fetuses”) and who supports partial-birth abortion (D&X) moral or qualified as a leader?

  • angcarrig November 1, 2008, 8:17 am

    Alison-

    Could you link to something about Obama calling for no nuclear weapons?

    Thanks

  • angcarrig November 1, 2008, 8:24 am

    Did anyone else read the October Ensign? There is an article on abortion in it by Russell M. Nelson. It makes it pretty clear what the church’s stand on abortion is. If you think Obama’s plan for abortion is ok, you might read what an apostle has to say about abortion. The church placed this article in the Ensign that directly preceded this election.

    Abortion: An Assault on the Defenseless

  • spande2 November 1, 2008, 10:17 am

    Obama says that this election is about abortion:
    http://americaschoicenow.com/

    The other day my kids and I did a little quick research and found the following:

    “Today we looked up how many people were killed during the Holocaust. The number is between 6 and 17 million, depending on who you ask. (The Jewish website we looked at said 6.)

    Stalin killed somewhere around 20-40 million.

    Since 1973 there have been 50 million abortions in the United States.
    http://www.nrlc.org/
    http://www.nrlc.org/Factsheets/FS03_AbortionintheUS.pdf

    One of the leading candidates for president wants to enact F.O.C.A. (Freedom of Choice Act) which would overturn every anti-abortion law in all fifty states. The other leading candidate is pro-life. One of these men will appoint judges to the U.S. Supreme Court.

    Just something to think about.”

    Obama never does say where he draws the line. So, if you decide one day that your two year old is just really an inconvenience, is it okay to take him to your local abortion clinic?

    Laban was killed to get access to records that prevent a whole people from “dwindl[ing] and perish[ing] in unbelief,” after all other options had been exhausted and a direct commandment was given from the Lord. Is that why people have abortions?

  • angcarrig November 1, 2008, 10:28 am

    I really am just surprised abortion is being defended on a website called Mormon Momma. Socialism, too. I’m surprised there are LDS voters who will vote for Obama proudly without even hesitation at the thought of partial birth abortion or the evil of socialism.

    It astounds me.

  • Alison Moore Smith November 1, 2008, 11:09 am

    Here are my questions again:

    (1) How does a call for no nuclear weapons classify as a “wise” (i.e. “not foolish”) defense policy?

    (2) How is someone who refuses care to botched abortion survivors (read that: dying babies, not to be confused with mere tissue blobs and/or “fetuses”) and who supports partial-birth abortion (D&X) moral or qualified as a leader?

    Anyone? Anyone?

  • Ray November 1, 2008, 11:19 am

    This is the Church’s published stance on abortion:

    Abortion

    Excerpts:

    “The Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience, and counsels its members not to submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions.”

    The abortions that the Church counsels to avoid without exception are “elective” abortions of “convenience”.

    “Abortion is a most serious matter and should be considered only after the persons involved have consulted with their local church leaders and feel through personal prayer that their decision is correct.”

    All other abortions are left to the individual members to decide, after serious consideration, discussion and prayer.

    “The Church has not favored or opposed legislative proposals or public demonstrations concerning abortion.”

    The Church has no official position on any legislation relative to abortion, including late term abortion. The instances are relatively rare, but there are cases where it does come down to the life of the mother or the life of the baby in the very late stages of pregnancy, and the Church allows for members to choose to save the mother rather than the baby – or to save the baby rather than the mother. If it’s a choice of life or life, the fundamental decision is which life to save. I am not going to condemn anyone who chooses either life over the other.

    Also, Angcarrig, I think it is a stretch to say that anyone here is “defending abortion”. I, for example, am only “defending” it as an option, exactly as it is “defended” in the Church’s own newsroom statement.

  • Naismith November 1, 2008, 11:38 am

    Could you give us some examples of the ills he will heal… and HOW he’ll do it?

    We can expect the Obama administration to be much like the Clinton administration, since he is also a centrist Democrat, and he is considering veterans of the Clinton years to serve in his cabinet.

    The Clinton administration championed the most pro-family agenda in this century.

    They created the SCHIP program, offering health insurance to children in families with incomes up to 200% of the federal poverty level. This has greatly increased rates of health coverage, immunization, getting check-ups and treatment among the children of our nation. Our infant survival rate is finally up to that of Cuba. All of my grandchildren are covered by this program, and I think it is a great thing.

    The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) has also been a boon to American parents, and children of aging parents, in ensuring that someone doesn’t lose their job when they take time off to have a baby or care for ill parents or deal with an adoption. I know several people who couldn’t take time off to pursue a foreign adoption until that came through, and there were also some other pro-adoption policies passed during that time.

    Their policies also promoted marriage, by making it so that poor women got Medicaid regardless of marital status.

    Everything Obama has said makes me think those kind of pro-family progressive policies would continue and be expanded as funds from a growing economy became available.

  • Lewis_Family November 1, 2008, 11:52 am

    Posted By: spande2

    Laban was killed to get access to records that prevent a whole people from “dwindl[ing] and perish[ing] in unbelief,” after all other options had been exhausted and a direct commandment was given from the Lord. Is that why people have abortions?

    Ha, it wasn’t in regards to abortion persay, more just using the term murder in regards to our church’s stance πŸ™‚

  • Naismith November 1, 2008, 12:00 pm

    I really am just surprised abortion is being defended on a website called Mormon Momma. Socialism, too. I’m surprised there are LDS voters who will vote for Obama proudly without even hesitation at the thought of partial birth abortion or the evil of socialism.

    Isn’t that the great thing about life, the things we learn every day? Remember that part of the RS mission statement, “We love life and learning.”

    I can’t see that anyone is defending abortion or claiming to be a socialist. I certainly am not. Sen. Obama is not.

    The right to an abortion is the law in the US, and the 12th Article of Faith says that we believe in “in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.”

    What has Sen. Obama said about abortion? In the last debate, he said this:

    OBAMA: Yes, let me respond to this. If it sounds incredible that I would vote to withhold lifesaving treatment from an infant, that’s because it’s not true. The — here are the facts.

    There was a bill that was put forward before the Illinois Senate that said you have to provide lifesaving treatment and that would have helped to undermine Roe v. Wade. The fact is that there was already a law on the books in Illinois that required providing lifesaving treatment, which is why not only myself but pro-choice Republicans and Democrats voted against it.

    And the Illinois Medical Society, the organization of doctors in Illinois, voted against it. Their Hippocratic Oath would have required them to provide care, and there was already a law in the books.

    With respect to partial-birth abortion, I am completely supportive of a ban on late-term abortions, partial-birth or otherwise, as long as there’s an exception for the mother’s health and life, and this did not contain that exception.

    And I attempted, as many have in the past, of including that so that it is constitutional. And that was rejected, and that’s why I voted present, because I’m willing to support a ban on late-term abortions as long as we have that exception.

    The last point I want to make on the issue of abortion. This is an issue that — look, it divides us. And in some ways, it may be difficult to — to reconcile the two views.

    But there surely is some common ground when both those who believe in choice and those who are opposed to abortion can come together and say, “We should try to prevent unintended pregnancies by providing appropriate education to our youth, communicating that sexuality is sacred and that they should not be engaged in cavalier activity, and providing options for adoption, and helping single mothers if they want to choose to keep the baby.”

    This hardly sounds like someone who “supports killing of infants.” He has said he supports a ban on late-term abortions, supports adoption and refers to sexuality as “SACRED.”

    As latter-day saints, we should rejoice that a candidate shares our belief that sexuality is sacred.

    Why be so afraid of someone who shares such an essential core value with us?

    I never said I was voting for Obama without hesitation at his pro-choice beliefs, only with pride for who he is and what he believes in, what he has accomplished and the bright people (Warren Buffet, Colin Powell) he has attracted to his campaign.

    As to whether a proposal for universal health coverage is “socialism,” the Obama plan is quite close to Mitt Romney’s plan that was passed in Massachusetts and brought 10,000s of working Americans into having health coverage.

    Our brothers and sisters in Western Europe all have government-mandated health coverage, and nobody considers those democracies to be “socialist.”

    I have wondered what it would be like to serve in the church in those countries, because a huge chunk of my time as RS president and my husband’s as bishop was taken with trying to find health care for people. A lot more time for ministering would have been available if we weren’t having to call around worrying about health care for folks.

  • jennycherie November 1, 2008, 12:00 pm

    Posted By: Naismithcentrist Democrat

    Do you really think he is a centrist? His votes are considered the most liberal in the senate. He is extreme compared to many Democrats. My mother is a huge fan of his for that very reason.

  • angcarrig November 1, 2008, 12:01 pm

    Alison-

    Thanks for reposting that. Sorry I missed it.

    Ray-

    Yep, that’s what I meant. The church’s position is against convenience abortion. But there is that whole thing about WHY that makes the article worth reading and considering when voting for Obama.

  • Naismith November 1, 2008, 12:09 pm

    Why? Because he’ll salute the flag, sing the national anthem, wear a freaking flag pin and be a PATRIOT!

    So that’s the qualification: to be a PATRIOT, you have to salute the flag, sing the national anthem, and agree with you?

    My three years in the Army wasn’t enough to qualify?

    My brother who read military strategy journals and did graduate work in international affairs and thus disagreed with the invasion (but nonetheless served with honor and distinction during his three activations) wasn’t a PATRIOT?

  • Kathy November 1, 2008, 12:37 pm

    (1) How does a call for no nuclear weapons classify as a “wise” (i.e. “not foolish”) defense policy?

    Alison, perhaps you should ask that question of McCain ?s foreign policy advisor, Henry Kissinger. He co-wrote his position with Sam Nunn, George Shultz and William Perry called A World Free of Nuclear Weapons ? (http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=8592). I know you put out the call for anyone? ? on this one, so how about the former chairman of the Armed Services Committee and the three secretaries of state? These experts “endorse setting the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons, ?
    Part of the wisdom ?, in a strategic sense, is that it removes the premise that the US is being hypocritical in its dealings with the world when it comes to nuclear proliferation. As Obama said in a policy speech this year:

    We need to work with Russia to take US and Russian ballistic missiles off hair-trigger alert; to dramatically reduce the stockpiles of our nuclear weapons and material; to seek a global ban on the production of fissile material for weapons; and to expand the US-Russian ban on intermediate-range missiles so that the agreement is global. By keeping our commitment under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, we’ll be in a better position to press nations like North Korea and Iran to keep theirs. In particular, it will give us more credibility and leverage in dealing with Iran.” (http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/07/full_text_of_obamas_iraq_speec.php)

    Ronald Reagan is another anyone ? who called for the abolishment of all nuclear weapons, calling them “totally irrational, totally inhumane, good for nothing but killing, possibly destructive of life on earth and civilization.”

    I suppose another point of wisdom ? in getting rid of nuclear weapons is the horrendous damage that can be done: A 10-kiloton bomb [less than one-tenth the power of many of today’s warheads] detonated at Grand Central Station on a typical work day would likely kill some half a million people, and inflict over a trillion dollars in direct economic damage. America and its way of life would be changed forever. ? (http://www.nti.org/e_research/cnwm/cnwm.pdf)
    So I ?ll defer further arguments to the very people we entrust to safeguard our country, and who have gone on the record against nuclear armament. I imagine they also count as anyones ?:

    Becton, Lt. General Julius (USA) (Ret.); Burns, Maj. General William F. (USA) (Ret.)vJCS Representative, INF Negotiations (1981-88) Special Envoy to Russia for Nuclear Dismantlmement (1992-93); Carroll, Jr., Rear Admiral Eugene J. (USN) (Ret.) Deputy Director, Center for Defense Information; Cushman, Lt. General John H. (USA) (Ret.) Commander, I Corps (ROK/US) Group (Korea) (1976-78); Galvin, General John R., Supreme Allied Commander, Europe (1987-1992); Gayler, Admiral Noel (USN) (Ret.) former Commander, Pacific; Horner, General Charles A. (USAF) (Ret.) Commander, Coalition Air Forces, Desert Storm (1991) former Commander, U.S. Space Command; James, Rear Admiral Robert G. (USNR) (Ret.); O’Meara, General Andrew (USA) (Ret.), former Commander U.S. Army, Europe; Pursley, Lt. General Robert E. USAF (Ret.); Read, Vice Admiral William L. (USN) (Ret.) former Commander, U.S. Navy Surface Force, Atlantic Command; Rogers, General Bernard W. (USA) (Ret.) former Chief of Staff, U.S. Army; former NATO Supreme Allied Commander (1979-1987); Seignious, II, Lt. General George M. (USA) (Ret.) fomer Director Army Control and Disarmament Agency; Shanahan, Vice Admiral John J. (USN) (Ret.) Director, Center for Defense Information; Smith, General William Y., (USAF) (Ret.) former Deputy Commander, U.S. Command, Europe; Wilson, Vice Admiral James B. (USN) (Ret.) former Polaris Submarine Captain.

    http://www.ccnr.org/generals.html

  • angcarrig November 1, 2008, 12:45 pm

    I keep missing a lot of posts-

    Naismith-

    There is what Obama says and then there is what he does. He opposed legislation that would require medical services for survivors of abortion. There is a lot of information out there about how he has side-stepped that issue with the words you quote. He also has said himself that he supports FOCA. I believe Alison has posted a link to where he says as much.

    It’s quite a statement to say that nobody believes Western European countries are socialist.

    I do not rejoice in Barack Obama. I find him totally in opposition to what I believe as a rational human being with my own mind and as a believer in the gospel of Christ. Please do not say that as LDS people we should rejoice in Barack Obama. Rejoice in him all you like. It puzzles me to the extreme.

    You don’t consider Obama a threat to the gospel of Christ and what we know of the evils of abortion and socialism. I do.

  • Lewis_Family November 1, 2008, 2:45 pm

    I was going to say the same, it made me so mad to hear Obama say that in the debate because people who haven’t investigated the issue won’t know he was lying through his teeth. I guess some believe everything they hear politicians say… interesting and sad.

  • facethemusic November 1, 2008, 3:01 pm

    The right to an abortion is the law in the US, and the 12th Article of Faith says that we believe in “in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.”

    I think that is THE MOST PATHETIC thing I’ve read in a long time.
    So when raping children and mutilating their genitalia becomes legal, good Mormons will support people’s right to do so because the the 12th Article of Faith says we believe in obeying, honoring and sustaining the law.

    I can’t tolerate such absolute, moronic nonsense. I’m bowing out of this one before I destroy my own computer screen. Just reading this stubborn stupidity is hurting my eyes.

  • Ray November 1, 2008, 3:03 pm

    He was lying through his teeth.

    I guess some believe everything they hear politicians say… interesting and sad.

    It really is interesting and sad. It would be so much easier if it was limited to one side, but, unfortunately, both statements apply to both tickets and supporters of both tickets.

  • Amy E November 1, 2008, 3:22 pm

    Posted By: RayIt really is interesting and sad. It would be so much easier if it was limited to one side, but, unfortunately, both statements apply to both tickets and supporters of both tickets.

    Did anyone really say it was limited to one side? I think it just seems that way since this thread is about Obama. Just saying. πŸ™‚

  • Alison Moore Smith November 1, 2008, 3:58 pm

    Posted By: Alison Moore Smith(1) How does a call for no nuclear weapons classify as a “wise” (i.e. “not foolish”) defense policy?

    Posted By: KathyAlison, perhaps you should ask that question of McCain ?s foreign policy advisor, Henry Kissinger.

    That’s what we call a diversion. It’s Alan Colms favorite trip into la la land.

    Why should I ask Henry Kissinger? I’m not promoting McCain. I can’t stand the guy. Nor am I promoting Kissinger.

    I said Obama’s position on nukes was foolish. Naismith said I was name-calling. I’m asking someone to explain how calling for a ban on nuclear weapons is wise.

    Part of the wisdom ?, in a strategic sense, is that it removes the premise that the US is being hypocritical in its dealings with the world when it comes to nuclear proliferation.

    Exactly. So WE disarm first, to show everyone we’re making a good faith effort at a “world without nuclear weapons.” Then what happens. Please tell me the strategy involved here! (And point out where the way-back machine comes into play.)

  • Naismith November 1, 2008, 5:25 pm

    I think that is THE MOST PATHETIC thing I’ve read in a long time.
    So when raping children and mutilating their genitalia becomes legal, good Mormons will support people’s right to do so because the the 12th Article of Faith says we believe in obeying, honoring and sustaining the law.

    I would expect so, unless the prophet gives guidance that changes the 12th Article of Faith. During WWII, many latter-day saints fought on the side of the Nazis. Of course they tried to bring humanity to the task at hand, whatever they were assigned to do. But they did obey their government, which did include a lot of murder, etc.

  • Naismith November 1, 2008, 5:38 pm

    I actually quite like Romney’s solution. But I haven’t seen Obama say anything that seemed to resemble this. Could you point me to a source for Obama’s health care plan and/or point out the similarities?

    Well, here is a piece from the Wall Street Journal which makes that point, and it’s hardly considered a liberal rag.

    http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/07/29/romneys-massachusetts-health-plan-could-hurt-vp-chances/

    The Romney and Obama plans are similar in (1) relying on private coverage, not a government bureaucracy, (2) mandates, including pay-or-play for large businesses (not small ones like Joe the plumber, (3) expanded existing government coverage for those who can’t afford/access otherwise.

  • Alison Moore Smith November 1, 2008, 6:35 pm

    It was a sincere question Naismith. (Your response seemed to indicate that you didn’t think so. Apologies if I misinterpreted.) I appreciate the link. It sounds like I might agree with it. I particularly like a plan that uses private enterprise.

    Posted By: NaismithI would expect so, unless the prophet gives guidance that changes the 12th Article of Faith. During WWII, many latter-day saints fought on the side of the Nazis. Of course they tried to bring humanity to the task at hand, whatever they were assigned to do. But they did obey their government, which did include a lot of murder, etc.

    I think history shows that the church and our leaders don’t actually follow this Article of Faith to the letter, in all circumstances–and don’t expect us to either. (Polygamy is just one example.) We also have many authoritative sources saying that those who led the American revolution were inspired and correct–even though they were serious criminals from the English point of view.

    My point is that while members aren’t condemned for following the laws of their countries–even when the leaders of those countries are corrupt–we have praised others for breaking those laws, skirting the laws, employing all sorts of means, etc., in pursuit of higher causes.

    Ever heard the church vilify anyone who harbored Jews during WWII? ran the underground railroad? snuck out countries with oppressive regimes? sat in the front of the bus?

    I have never broken a law in defense of the unborn (or…ahem…partially born). Maybe I’m just too chicken. But I’m not convinced that God would rather me “support the rights” of someone to, say, have a partial birth abortion in the name of “obeying the law,” than to rush into an abortion clinic, scoop up the baby, and try to save it’s life. Or that he would rather me “support the right” of someone to rape a child in the name of “obeying the law” rather than to run in, grab the child, and take it to safety. I simply don’t think the 12 AoF means that we “support the right” of people to do something evil, just because we have a enough people around who want no limits on their behavior.

    BTW, how do you “bring humanity” to rounding up people and sending them to gas chambers? Maybe you smile and give a warm welcome on their way by? Personally I think Schindler was one guy who had the right idea. There were over a thousand people who are pretty glad he didn’t fixate on “obeying the law.”

  • Naismith November 1, 2008, 6:53 pm

    I said Obama’s position on nukes was foolish. Naismith said I was name-calling.

    This isn’t quite accurate. What you actually said was,

    Watch this fool in action.

    Now of course you can toss your head and sniff that is just a matter of semantics. Maybe it is, to you.

    To me it is not. Those are two different things. As a parent, I was always very careful to never say that I had a bad boy, just boys who did some bad things. And so on.

    Why waste the words and energy to use those pejorative adjectives? Why not just say, “The problem I see with this is….” and address the actual issue?

  • Alison Moore Smith November 1, 2008, 7:08 pm

    Posted By: Naismith As a parent, I was always very careful to never say that I had a bad boy, just boys who did some bad things. And so on.

    :rolling:

    Holy cow! I was thinking of this exact example in the shower this morning! I think this is the height of psycho-babble at it’s feel good finest. Something we learned was imperative in the Self-Esteem Generation. Yea, Hitler wasn’t a murderer. He was a man who murdered. Obama isn’t a fool. He just a man who does foolish things.

    You know, because of the age in which I was raised, I use the same phrases you do. But I still think, generally, they are stupid. When I say, “I’m disappointed that you lied to me.” they actually KNOW that lying makes them liars! Maybe my kids are geniuses.

    Why not just say, “The problem I see with this is….”

    OK.

    The problem I see with this is that Obama is a fool in action.

  • Alison Moore Smith November 1, 2008, 7:09 pm

    Now can you explain to me how disarming is a hip, stylin’ policy?

  • Naismith November 1, 2008, 7:36 pm

    Holy cow! I was thinking of this exact example in the shower this morning! I think this is the height of psycho-babble at it’s feel good finest.

    Then don’t do it, if that’s not your parenting style.

    I just don’t understand the pleasure you get in laughing at other people who don’t agree with you, and calling them names.

    It’s great you have such wonderful self-esteem that you can go around pissing on the rest of us stooopid people who are too lazy to be as smart as successful as you are.

    I try to show respect for people with different opinions. I don’t go around demonizing John McCain, and I don’t hate the Bushes.

  • Oregonian November 1, 2008, 7:40 pm

    naismith said “We are fortunate to have someone of his caliber willing to assume the burden of the presidency at this perilous time in our nations’ history.”

    you say this even though obama supports collapsing baby skull. since all you complain about here is allison’s “tone” I think youre probably ready to make her the freaking queen.

  • TheWallruss November 1, 2008, 9:17 pm

    DING! DING! DING! KO. Back to your corners.

    WOW! This has really turned into a slugging match. Try discussing the issues. Obama, good or bad for us, for America? I think that is the subject of this thread. It is easy when discussing politics and or religion ( such a volatile mix ) for things to get out of hand and for it to become personal. To forget about the issues and attack one another.

    Talk about the pros and cons of Berry Obama. Like his ability to tell us what he is going to change, but not how he is going to change them or at what price.
    Like how anyone of a military background can want a Commander and Chief who is unwilling to respect and or salute the flag that represents our nation. It seems to me that he will not even sing the National Anthem. This is not a big red flag? ( no pun intended, it just worked out that way. )

    There was so much hype about Mitt Romney being a “flip flop” and yet it seems that Berry has been flip flopping about a lot of things. Like his Pasture for the last 20 years. Like his schooling and training in a Muslim academy. Like his real name and why he picked for himself the name Barack. ( the name on the doctored copy of a birth certificate that he claimed was his is “Barack Hussein Obama II”. His name is Barry. ) The trail of lies he has left behind is almost as long as the trail of bodies that the Clinton’s have left behind. He is a smooth talker, but he inspires no trust in me.

    Let us talk about his political background. One that is dismal at best. He has done nothing of value. Look at the bills that hes name is on. Nothing of substance.

    Has anyone here read his books? Ouch! The Barry Obama of his books and the Barack Obama represented to the American people during this campaign are two very different people. You need not put out the cash to buy his books, just do a google and read them on line.

    This man is the epitome of the “Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing”. I believe he will bring a really big, perhaps apocalyptic change to America if he is elected. If he has hes way he will rewrite the Constitution. But it will not be in favor of the American people.

    Wally

  • Kathy November 1, 2008, 9:36 pm

    Like how anyone of a military background can want a Commander and Chief who is unwilling to respect and or salute the flag that represents our nation.

    I’m amazed that anyone actually believes this. The problem with this kind of inductive reasoning is that it only takes one counter example to make the entire claim unsound.

    Unless you’re part of some photoshop conspiracy theory, can we put this kind of nonsense to rest? Then maybe we CAN talk about the issues.

  • Ray November 1, 2008, 9:45 pm

    Fwiw, someone I know and respect greatly wrote the following:

    So I like about half of what each candidate has to offer and I despise the other half. How do I choose which is the more important half? Do I go ahead and vote for the ones who believe in marriage between a man and a woman because the church is emphasizing that right now? And would they (or could they) even do anything about it? I tend to think that it will continue to be a states’ issue under either candidate, so is this a non-issue in the national contest? Do I worry about abortion? And is there much chance of either party actually changing Roe v. Wade? Do I worry about an unjustified war continuing for years and years with high costs to our country financially and to our military with injuries, deaths, and mental illnesses? Do I plug my nose and just vote for the lesser of two evils? I have listened to biases from both sides, I’ve searched online and read everything possible and I’m still at odds.

    I won’t link to the blog, because, frankly, I don’t want the overall tone of this discussion to invade her blog, but she lays out all of the pros and cons of each Pres. and VP candidate and ends with the paragraph I quoted above. I agree with her analysis in the end. There simply isn’t a good alternative this time. Both choices have horrible aspects.

  • spande2 November 1, 2008, 9:58 pm

    Tomorrow is Fast Sunday. Maybe we could all fast that we will vote in what is right for this nation and hope that is what happens–whatever it is.

  • spande2 November 1, 2008, 10:00 pm

    Thank you for taking the time to argue this. I think some of these people need serious therapy.

  • spande2 November 1, 2008, 10:01 pm

    I’m out too. I can’t believe some of the comments here. I think these people are in need of serious therapy.

  • delmar November 1, 2008, 11:08 pm

    Posted By: Naismith

    Why? Because he’ll salute the flag, sing the national anthem, wear a freaking flag pin and be a PATRIOT!

    So that’s the qualification: to be a PATRIOT, you have to salute the flag, sing the national anthem, and agree with you?

    My three years in the Army wasn’t enough to qualify?

    My brother who read military strategy journals and did graduate work in international affairs and thus disagreed with the invasion (but nonetheless served with honor and distinction during his three activations) wasn’t a PATRIOT?

    I wasn’t talking about you or your families service. I was referring to Obamas open LACK of patriotism. You don’t have to agree with the war to fight in it, but you should understand how completely devastating it would be to just pull out the way Obama wants to. His lack of military knowledge makes him a scarey choice as Pres.

  • delmar November 1, 2008, 11:13 pm

    Posted By: Kathy

    Like how anyone of a military background can want a Commander and Chief who is unwilling to respect and or salute the flag that represents our nation.

    I’m amazed that anyone actually believes this. The problem with this kind of inductive reasoning is that it only takesone counter exampleto make the entire claim unsound.

    Unless you’re part of some photoshop conspiracy theory, can we put this kind of nonsense to rest? Then maybe we CAN talk about the issues.

    Oooh! An example of him actually saluting the flag. What was he having a good day? A bad day? It should happen EVERY time.

    5 1/2 years as a POW gets my vote over OCCASIONALLY saluting the flag. Its like voting.

  • Alison Moore Smith November 2, 2008, 1:23 am

    Posted By: NaismithI just don’t understand the pleasure you get in laughing at other people who don’t agree with you, and calling them names.

    I wasn’t laughing at you nor calling you names. I was laughing at the fact that I’d actually anticipated this EXACT response. And I was mocking the IDEAS that I was also taught. I think (1) the idea that parsing words from “You are a bad boy” to “You are a boy who did bad things” is underestimating our children’s intelligence and (2) that some things really ARE bad and some people really ARE evil.

    When we do bad stuff, we ARE bad. And when we do good stuff, we ARE good. That’s what the words mean. And I do think that all the self-esteem-comes-from-being-told-you-are-awesome-200-times-per-day-and-from-getting-fake-trophies-and-never-failing is a boatload of crapola. (If you want to know what I think is TRUE about self-esteem, read “Confronting the Myth of Self-Esteem” or “Who Put the Self in Self-Esteem?”) You can have a different opinion (and I might respect it), but that’s mine.

    It’s great you have such wonderful self-esteem that you can go around pissing on the rest of us stooopid people who are too lazy to be as smart as successful as you are.

    Really, why waste the words and energy to use those pejorative adjectives? Why not just say, “The problem I see with this is….” and address the actual issue?

    I guess I don’t see how patting each other on the head saying “good dog” is of much use–unless we really ARE a good dog. I don’t see how refusing to call bad things “bad” or foolish things “foolish” gets us anywhere.

    It cuts both ways. If you really can’t be a “bad boy,” you can’t be a “good boy” either. It’s that 2 Nephi thing again.

    I try to show respect for people with different opinions.

    I try to show respect for different respectable opinions. I don’t respect the opinion that killing half-delivered babies is OK. I don’t respect the opinion that partial birth abortion is for the “mother’s health.” I don’t respect those who calls abortion “choice” and partial-birth abortion “reproductive justice.” I don’t respect other people’s opinions just because the have an opinion–either different or the same.

    When we moved to Florida, we thought we were moving to the south. In truth, Boca Raton is New York/New Jersey. But we were close enough to real southerners to learn something of the culture. One thing I found that was fascinating was “southern hospitality.” The culture dictates certain things about how to respond to others in a variety of circumstances. It also carries a remarkable way to absolutely cut you off at the knees–using the sweetest phraseology imaginable. But even though the words were smooth as silk, you were still cleanly amputated.

    The truth is, Naismith, partial-birth abortion is vile and evil. Demanding that we speak gently and in moderated tones about this (and other) evil is, IMO, part of the problem. It’s not a gentle, moderate issue. It’s not a civil practice. It’s not kind and loving and sweet. And when we SPEAK to it this way, it minimizes what it really is and the evil that is occurring. And it perpetuates the evil.

    The candidate you want me to rejoice over refused to vote against: inducing dilation in a pregnant woman so that a doctor could reach in, pull the baby out by the feet, leave only it’s head in the birth canal, shove a sharp instrument into the base of its skull, suction the brains out, and THEN deliver the rest of it.

    The candidate you want me to rejoice over refused to vote for: allowing medical care to be given to dying babies who’d been suctioned or burned or whatever other method of tortured killing was attempted against them. Not fetuses. Not tissue blobs. BABIES. Babies who were born ANYWAY and were LIVING and BREATHING completely separated from their mothers.

    (Unless, of course, we use the honorable Barbara Boxer’s definition of “live baby,” which is “a baby that is born and goes home from the hospital.”)

    And you want me to be respectful and civil about it.

    Give me a break.

    If you are bothered by my tone and verbiage–but can rejoice over the man who took the positions he has on abortion–then I’ll tend to think your priorities are a bit skewed.

  • Naismith November 2, 2008, 6:21 am

    I wasn’t laughing at you nor calling you names.

    You absolutely did laugh at me. You quoted my words and followed it with a “rolling on the floor laughing” emoticon. A few times.

    I’m really grateful for this insight, of how it feels to be laughed at, because I work in RS leadership a lot, and through the years I’ve met women who have been traumatized by Relief Society. I tried to be sympathetic, but always wondered if they weren’t quick to be offended, and needed a dose of Elder Bednar’s talk.

    But no, you’ve taught me that LDS women really can be that bitchy to each other, demean and ridicule and laugh at them. Thanks for helping me to appreciate what they experienced. I will be a lot more sensitive to this issue now.

    If you think you are “right” on this stuff, why aren’t you confident enough in your own opinions to just state them? Why call other people “fool” etc.? It doesn’t strengthen your argument.

    The truth is, Naismith, partial-birth abortion is vile and evil

    I have never disagreed with you. It’s vile and evil. It is.

    But the truth is also that this election is not about abortion. Abortion is the law of the land.

    There are many other issues that will affect American lives, and be decided in this election. And to me, someone dead from colon cancer, which is entirely preventable, is just as vile as someone dead from partial-birth abortion. And yet you didn’t even know the details of the Obama health plan?

    There are lots of issues to consider when we choose one candidate over another. Health care is important to me because I work in that field, but it isn’t my only criteria. There are lots of different roles and issues to consider.

    The candidate you want me to rejoice over…

    I don’t you expect to rejoice over everything about that candidate, the same way I expect LDS McCain supporters don’t rejoice over his flagrant and widespread adultery.

    What I specifically said was that we should rejoice to have a candidate who views sexuality as “sacred.” That’s a place where we have common ground. And since there have been past elections where NEITHER candidate viewed sexuality as “sacred,” this is a very good place for us to be, IMO.

    We also have common ground with him in his devotion to his wife and children, and his concern over the “coarsening of America” (profanity and pornography). In the second debate, he was asked, “What don’t you know and how will you learn it?”

    His response:

    My wife, Michelle, is there and she could give you a much longer list than I do. And most of the time, I learn it by asking her.

    I thought that was a sweet reply, reminding me much of Pres. Monson’s talk at last conference, about his wife being in the hospital and how she was so much better at some things than he.

    The response that, “Well, that’s what he says, but he really thinks….” leaves me a bit cold because I’ve had that conversation so many times with non-member neighbors and co-workers. To my claim that we LDS don’t practice polygamy or baptize corpses or believe in this or that doctrine, they earnestly retort, “Yes you do believe it! My pastor said so, and here is this pamphlet!” I’d rather them look at the lds newsroom for their info. It’s a similar argument.

    As latter-day saints, we share a lot of values with this candidate. I don’t expect anyone to change their minds, but I do expect us to show some respect for him as a public servant and thoughtful citizen willing to give much to his nation, and to refrain from demonizing him. This is exactly what Sen. McCain told a supporter last week when she said she was “afraid” of Obama.

  • jennycherie November 2, 2008, 6:56 am

    Posted By: NaismithAnd to me, someone dead from colon cancer, which is entirely preventable, is just as vile as someone dead from partial-birth abortion.

    Posted By: NaismithI have never disagreed with you. It’s vile and evil. It is.

    How can you say it is vile and evil and then equate it with cancer? Cancer is not murder. A doctor cannot give a patient colon cancer, he can only treat it and try to cure it. Partial-birth abortion is evil done to an innocent victim by a doctor. I appreciate your opinion that this election is not about abortion but I disagree vehemently. The next president will very likely nominate two judges to the Supreme Court which could make a world of difference in Roe v. Wade. In addition, Senator Obama has said, on the record, that he will sign into law the Freedom of Choice Act. The Freedom of Choice Act, ironically, REMOVES many choices that we currently have. My problem with Obama’s position on abortion is that he is either dishonest enough or ignorant enough (please read that as uninformed, not as an insult) to believe that there are instances in which partial birth abortion is necessary to protect a mother’s health which is simply not true. If a woman can physically survive a partial-birth abortion, she can physically survive childbirth. The affects on her mental health, however, are very grave. Many women who have had a partial-birth abortion suffer for it (mentally) for years and years and years. And for this, he voted against the ban on partial-birth abortion?

  • jennycherie November 2, 2008, 6:58 am

    Posted By: NaismithYou absolutely did laugh at me. You quoted my words and followed it with a “rolling on the floor laughing” emoticon. A few times.

    Naismith, I can’t help but wonder then, why do you only seem to respond to Alison’s posts when you find them so offensive? There are many others of us who have responded to your posts and posed questions to you but you only respond to Alison’s posts.

  • Lewis_Family November 2, 2008, 10:17 am

    Being offended by the rolling smiley… wouldn’t that be oversensitive/ easily offended?

    I think it is sad, we disagree with each other a lot on here, we all have different opinions, but I find it the most sad that you would start using such distasteful language as “pissing” and “bitchy”… kind of shows us a little into your soul, you mormon momma you, and makes me care even less about your opinion now.

  • Alison Moore Smith November 2, 2008, 12:11 pm

    Posted By: NaismithYou absolutely did laugh at me. You quoted my words and followed it with a “rolling on the floor laughing” emoticon. A few times.

    So. I specified exactly what I was laughing AT. I also told you that *I* use the same phrases you do–the one’s I quoted. If there’s a particular internet protocol for emoticon placement, please let me know. I sincerely was not laughing at you, I was laughing at the fact (as I said) that I had actually anticipated the exact the exact response. I’m not usually good at divining people’s posts.

    But the fact that I explained–again–what I was laughing at and you still insist on having superior knowledge about it is something only you can answer.

    If you think you are “right” on this stuff, why aren’t you confident enough in your own opinions to just state them?

    Wait, just a few posts back you suggested that I was too confident. now I’m not confident enough. Gosh, let me regroup and chant my self-esteem mantra and maybe I can get into a place you find acceptable. :confused:

    Why call other people “fool” etc.? It doesn’t strengthen your argument.

    I called Obama a fool because I think he’s foolish. The repeated statements along these lines probably make that clear to most readers. I don’t know whether it strengthens my argument or not. Emotional responses absolutely can do so. You seem to think that “pissy” and “bitchy” work for you. Why can’t “fool” work for me?

    I have never disagreed with you. It’s vile and evil. It is.

    I’m glad we agree. As I said earlier, to me it is a deal-breaker. I can think of few things I find more evil and, so, I cannot support a candidate with the positions Obama has taken on it.

    FWIW, I have voted for democrats in my life. But they were pro-life dems whose views on that matter largely reflected my own. There is a guy currently running for house (not in my district) in Utah who is a democrat, but is strongly pro-life. I am happy to consider those candidates.

    But the truth is also that this election is not about abortion. Abortion is the law of the land.

    What *is* the election about, Naismith?

    Obama HAS said that loosening abortion laws is his FIRST PRIORITY! That has been discussed at length here. *HE* thinks it’s about abortion to a great extent.

    Every election is about the direction the elected leader will take. It’s about what new laws will pass, what old laws will be superseded. It’s about new policies and old policies. You have pointed out that an Obama presidency would mean expanding of government programs. I agree. He has said its about expanding abortion rights. I also agree.

    And to me, someone dead from colon cancer, which is entirely preventable, is just as vile as someone dead from partial-birth abortion.

    I asked this when you brought up the tooth infection case. You didn’t respond. I’ll ask again because I find this statement so appalling and unbelievable that I have to think you misspoke twice in the same line of thinking.

    Really? Do you REALLY think that it’s JUST AS VILE for someone to die from a DISEASE as it is for a baby to die by having scissors jammed into its brain and the contents sucked out????

    And yet you didn’t even know the details of the Obama health plan?

    No, I don’t. I don’t know lots of absolute details about candidates.

    First, because Obama’s position on partial-birth abortion and medical care to botched abortion survivors and FOCA and socialist agenda and … are deal-breakers to me. It makes no difference to me, from a voting standpoint, what his health care plan is in the specifics, because I won’t vote for him. In the same way, it makes no difference to me what his position is on immigration or mental illness or saluting the flag or veganism. He lost my vote at the Planned Parenthood rally.

    Second, since I don’t think dying of colon cancer is “as vile” as having scissors jammed into my skull, universal health care isn’t as important to me as protecting the babies who get their brains sucked into the sink.

    I don’t you expect to rejoice over everything about that candidate, the same way I expect LDS McCain supporters don’t rejoice over his flagrant and widespread adultery.

    You’re right, but you DO want me to, “rejoice that [Obama] shares our belief that sexuality is sacred.”

    Sorry, but anyone who claims that sexuality is sacred, but the OUTCOME of sexuality can be suctioned to pieces at will is LYING. What is sacred about sexuality if it isn’t inherently linked to the sacredness of procreation?

    FWIW, I do respect Obama’s apparent loyalty to and love for his wife. While I find the statements about past marital problems to be a bit of a red flag in that regard (I don’t think they’re referring to issues over the toilet seat) I am glad to see a strong relationship without obvious moral issues. I’ve said repeatedly that I’m appalled by McCain’s adultery. I can respect that it was long ago and that it doesn’t appear to have been Clinton-like problem. But I still have a problem with leaders who can’t keep their hands to themselves and their actual wives.

    The response that, “Well, that’s what he says, but he really thinks….” leaves me a bit cold

    I don’t believe that I ever said that. What I did say is that when his voting record contradicts his sound bites, I’ll go with the voting record. His obviously misleading statements saying he supports a ban on partial-birth abortion–when he voted against it–are one example.

    I don’t expect anyone to change their minds, but I do expect us to show some respect for him as a public servant and thoughtful citizen willing to give much to his nation, and to refrain from demonizing him.

    Do you respect Hitler because he had good taste in shoes? Do you respect Jeffrey Dahmer because he was good at packaging and freezing?

    I do not respect anyone who would refuse to ban partial-birth abortion and refuse to provide medical care to dying babies. You have a right to respect him if you choose. Obama’s stand is evil and I do not respect it or him. Promoting such evil is, to me, an overriding issue.

    Posted By: jennycherieThere are many others of us who have responded to your posts and posed questions to you but you only respond to Alison’s posts.

    Well, jennycherie, Oregonian DID say that I was going to be queen. πŸ˜‰

  • Alison Moore Smith November 2, 2008, 12:23 pm

    In defense of Naismith’s language, I don’t use those words because I know they offend others, but I actually think they are pretty good descriptives and am not entirely opposed to them PERSONALLY. Like I said earlier in speaking in soft tones about something as horrific as partial-birth abortion, it minimizes the issue. So if she find me to be really offensive, saying something like, “You seem agitated” doesn’t really describe what I’m doing very well.

    Sometimes trying to accurately represent an issue in terms that are socially acceptable is difficult, especially when the issue is inherently evil. “Evil” and “vile” just aren’t strong enough words, but what others suffice that aren’t outright offensive?

    My only problem with the “b” word is that it tends only to be directed as women (for obvious reasons) and often when they aren’t doing anything more aggressive than men do regularly.

  • Lewis_Family November 2, 2008, 12:43 pm

    With all the words there are in the English language, for one to not be able to find an equally descriptive word that is not offensive, I find hard to believe… and as stated before I know I am not the most educated here and yet even I can think of other words that could be used that would not have to be referred to by others by their first letter.

  • Alison Moore Smith November 2, 2008, 4:52 pm

    You make good points, Lewis. You’re probably right. It just seems that as the general language gets coarser, the language of polite society carries less impact. Do you know what I mean?

    Anyway, when I was at church something occurred to me. I have said that I think the parenting psychology trends that claim “you’re a boy who did a bad thing” is different from being “a bad boy” is generally silly.

    But then I realized I did pretty much the same thing in my argument that I wasn’t making fun of Naismith. To be clear, I was NOT making fun of her when I used the ROFL emoticon after her “bad boy” statement. That WAS laughter because I’d thought of the same example-which surprise me. But when I used the same emoticon after her “centrist democrat” comment (and probably similar responses at other times) my thought was “I’m laughing at the idea that Obama is a centrist democrat.” In truth, however, that’s pretty specious since it’s pretty hard to separate laughing at someone’s IDEA and laughing at THEM. That’s as dumb as saying, “I wasn’t laughing at HER, I was laughing at her HAIR.”

    So I want to apologize to Naismith for mocking her in that way. I sincerely hadn’t looked at my behavior carefully enough to recognize it for what it was. I will try to do better and I appreciate that she pointed it out to me.

  • kiar November 2, 2008, 8:39 pm

    Holy crap, she is trying to make you look bad! have you ever wanted to reach through the computer screen and just shake her??? I know I do. She is so totally snarky, I can’t even believe the restraint that you have shown! good for you!
    By the way, I have learned more in this post then I ever knew before, thanks.

  • Alison Moore Smith November 2, 2008, 11:09 pm

    Well, sometimes I deserve to look bad! Thanks for the kind words, but I think I needed a good slap upside the head. I might even keep myself in check..for a day or two… πŸ™‚

  • kiar November 3, 2008, 9:06 am

    Hee hee! as long as it’s only for a day or two!:wink:
    She seems to be a angry sad mean person. Too bad.

  • CamBendy November 5, 2008, 9:43 am

    Am I the only one who hears crickets on this thread?

    A heated discussion goes on and on. Allison apologizes (even though I don’t think she needed to) and Niasmith isn’t gracious enough to even respond. I know she’s been here because I’ve seen her name on the side list. I just think thats no class at all.

    But for Obama it really makes me pretty sick that any Mormons would support someone who is so opposed to our religious ideals. The abortion issue is too much for me. But I can’t see anything he believes in that fits LDS teachings.

  • Oregonian November 5, 2008, 9:52 am

    i hear the crickets. par for the course.

  • Alison Moore Smith November 5, 2008, 10:29 am

    Kathy, I only got to the first issue page: abortion. It’s hardly representative of an LDS point of view and doesn’t in any way address a justification for supporting a man who REFUSED TO BAN PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION and REFUSED TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE TO BABIES DYING FROM A BOTCHED ABORTION.

    Sorry, but I don’t need to read any further. Those positions are evil and they are Obama’s.

  • Alison Moore Smith November 7, 2008, 2:56 pm

    I’m still hoping for answers. Anyone? Anyone?

    (1) How does a call for no nuclear weapons classify as a “wise” (i.e. “not foolish”) defense policy?

    (2) How is someone who refuses care to botched abortion survivors (read that: dying babies, not to be confused with mere tissue blobs and/or “fetuses”) and who supports partial-birth abortion (D&X) moral or qualified as a leader?

  • facethemusic November 7, 2008, 3:02 pm

    I guess he couldn’t think of anything to say?

    They probably just couldn’t come up with a plausible argument against church teachings in those areas. :tooth:

    What I want to know is, since when have democrats made “Evangelicals and the rapture” a political issue? Very strange….

  • Alison Moore Smith December 22, 2008, 5:49 pm

    While waiting to hear answers on my two questions, here is a place to tell Obama you do not want him to support FOCA.

  • Alison Moore Smith December 23, 2008, 11:32 am

    With all the brouhaha surrounding Governor Blagojevich, and the subsequent denials by Obama that–how did he say it–any of his staff discussed the issue–I’m less persuaded than the Obamites that he is exonerated. Here’s my take:

    Besides the fact that Rahm Emanuel is purported to be on four hours of the recordings in discussions about this, people are crying that Obama is clean BECAUSE the statement was made that he wanted it known that nothing but appreciation would be given for an appointment.

    My question is: If he made this assertion–and recognizing that his roots are in what is likely the most corrupt political culture in our country–what are the chances that he did NOT know that Blagojevich wanted more than appreciation? And if he knew this–which IMO is pretty obvious–why wasn’t Obama contacting the Illinois attorney general about it?

    Or it is really true that he “grew up” around this corruption and had no idea?

    Reminds me of Eagle Mountain again, on a grand scale.

  • agardner January 21, 2009, 6:09 pm

    Start your engines….and we’re off!

  • facethemusic January 21, 2009, 7:59 pm

    Aye, yie, yie.
    Men (and women)…. to your battle stations!

  • Amy E January 21, 2009, 8:18 pm

    Yippee. πŸ™ Argh.

  • davidson January 21, 2009, 10:11 pm

    That makes me heart-sick. Thanks for the heads up, Alison. I sent the email.

  • jennycherie January 22, 2009, 4:27 am

    Are you all familiar with the March for Life? To coincide with the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, today is the 36th annual March for Life. I had never heard about it until I started teaching last year. Some of you may know, the school where I teach is a Catholic school and many of my students feel passionately about this issue. Because it coincides with the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, it also happens right at the beginning of a new semester–a horrible time to leave, academically. Still, there is a waiting list to go because so many want to. It really gives me hope to see college students (and many others) uniting to do this. It’s nice that it falls so close to the inauguration. I hope their presence will make a difference.

  • Kathy January 22, 2009, 9:39 am

    At least Obama doesn’t scare the bejeebers out of all LDS.

    …just sayin’

    http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=5383626

  • Lewis_Family January 22, 2009, 9:41 am

    Posted By: KathyAt least Obama doesn’t scare the bejeebers out of all LDS.

    …just sayin’

    http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=5383626

    Don’t you think he should? He is taking highly held values and morals that the church believes in and throwing them away… is that not scary?

  • Lewis_Family January 22, 2009, 9:42 am

    The link is out of context too, yeah the inauguration went well, but as soon as he set foot in the office things are taking place and I am sure that interview happened before information got out.

  • Alison Moore Smith January 22, 2009, 11:14 am

    Posted By: Kathy…just sayin’

    What are you “just sayin'”? Are you implying that the things that bother ME about Obama don’t also bother THEM? Seriously, the little aside deserves a little more explanation. The questions I asked ages ago (in this thread) in reference to that went unanswered.

    Let’s see, Ballard and Uchtdorf liked the “Yes, we can” attitude. They want “prosperity, peace, and strength” in our country. They agree that an opportunity to serve others is an opportunity to serve God. (Did Obama say that?) And they liked his call for personal responsibility (as I also said in the other thread). Is this surprising?

    At the same time the church leaders say they’re encouraged by the president’s vision, they’re careful about keeping their comments politically neutral when it comes to specific issues.

    They just have a little more class than the folks who, for example, booed the Bushes at a public ceremony. They are looking for common ground and a positive attitude when they are AT THE MAN’S INAUGURATION. Would any of us expect otherwise?

    But, hey, when the church starts supporting a “woman’s right to choose” to collapse a baby’s skull, let me know.

  • Alison Moore Smith January 23, 2009, 2:22 pm

    More change:

    President Obama has lifted a ban on federal funding for international groups that promote or perform abortions, reversing a policy of his predecessor, George W. Bush.

    Obama’s actions mean that hundreds of millions of your tax dollars will go to help groups like Planned Parenthood perform abortions around the world.

    Aren’t we proud?

  • Alison Moore Smith January 26, 2009, 2:26 pm

    I’m starting to like Star Parker. Who knew that someone who’d been on The View actually has an active brain cell?

    Culture of responsibility if culture of life

  • jennycherie January 26, 2009, 5:15 pm

    Great article! My students who went to the March for Life were back on campus today. I’m so sad to hear that President Obama did not speak to them.

  • jennycherie January 26, 2009, 5:18 pm

    this really stood out to me:

    “The black poverty rate, which has been frozen at twice the national average for decades, is almost exclusively a phenomenon of single parent homes. Black families with two married parents at home are on approximate economic par with white families.”

    Why aren’t more people talking about this? Where is the outcry from the black community? Why is this not horrifying to the people who are most hurt by it?

  • agardner January 26, 2009, 5:22 pm

    She was on the View?

  • Alison Moore Smith January 26, 2009, 5:56 pm

    I think she was. I’ve never actually seen an episode of The View, but I’ve seen lots of clips on O’Reilly, etc. Either she was on it or made lots of guest appearances.

  • jennycherie January 26, 2009, 6:57 pm

    Posted By: agardnerShe was on the View?

    Yes, she was. If you read her (very interesting) biography, it mentions a recent episode of The View with Barbara Walters.

  • agardner January 26, 2009, 7:42 pm

    But just one epsiode, right? She wasn’t one of the hosts. It’s not Star Jones-Reynolds with a new name.

  • Alison Moore Smith January 26, 2009, 11:12 pm

    I honestly don’t know. Maybe I’m conflating the two Stars. (Who knew there were so many?) I just know that people screamed bloody murder about Star Parker being on there. You know what they call those black conservatives.

    I’ve probably seen more SNL spoofs of The View than actual footage of the show.

  • Amy E January 27, 2009, 12:08 am

    I confuse the two of them myself. Star Parker writes newspaper columns regularly and my Google search shows that she guest hosted at least once on “The View,” probably just once considering her views. Star Jones was on the show for nine seasons and left a while ago according to Wikipedia. Hope that clears it up.

  • jennycherie January 27, 2009, 3:41 pm

    great video! I just emailed my congressman last weekend about my concern over gun control. The more laws we pass to limit the 2nd amendment, the more power we give to the criminals and thugs.

  • Alison Moore Smith January 27, 2009, 5:47 pm

    Isn’t that a no-brainer, jennycherie? I mean if you legislate guns away from law-abiding citizens, you will OBVIOUSLY leave only the CRIMINALS (who, by definition defy the law) with guns! How stupid can we be?

  • jennycherie February 9, 2009, 4:10 am

    Here is another great column by Star Parker!

  • spande2 February 9, 2009, 4:57 am

    Thanks for the link, jenny. Great article!

  • facethemusic February 9, 2009, 11:31 am

    Awesome article!

  • Alison Moore Smith February 9, 2009, 3:52 pm

    jennycherie, thank you for that link. Golly, maybe the CHURCH had a better idea in its welfare system than the GOVERNMENT. Maybe bleeding hearts can figure out that handouts aren’t any better for adults than they are for our kids.

  • facethemusic February 9, 2009, 6:21 pm

    Yeah– this whole census thing being under the direction of the white house is a little spooky.

  • facethemusic February 16, 2009, 11:15 am

    A friend posted this on her blog– AMAZING young girl who filmed the persuasive speech she gave to her 7th grade English class.
    I thought it fit very well with our earlier discussion here.

  • facethemusic February 17, 2009, 8:46 am

    I just dropped my daughter off at school.
    The halls are still covered with all the Barack Obama stuff–I find it entirely annoying, but I understand the emphasis– the election of a new President, is something that all schools would naturally discuss alot, kids would make posters, write reports, etc. And the fact that Obama is the first black president gives it all an entirely new aspect.
    Although, I asked her teacher if the halls were covered with stuff about Bush when he won, and of course they weren’t. Since it’s a school, I’m sure all the emphasis and hallway decorations are more because he’s black and a democrat fully supporting the NEA, rather than simply the fact that there’s a new president.

    But what really got me this morning was an aide in the classroom. She usually works in a different room but is substituting in Sara’s room today.
    She was wearing a T-shirt that had a picture of Obama’s face coming through the clouds, with light surrounding him– very reminiscent of a second coming kind of thing– but what really drove it home was the slogan above it— “God so loved the world…”

    Open mouth– insert finger……and watch out for the lightening bolts

  • davidson February 17, 2009, 11:46 am

    Had an interesting experience last night. Our tiny town, which is five miles east of Idaho Falls, consists of a post office, a convenience store, a city building, a school, three churches, and a few hundred homes. It held a poetry, essay, and art contest recently, the theme being “Proud to Be an American.” I wrote an essay and entered it. Last night my family was invited to the “awards ceremony,” and we went. Hee hee. I took first place in the essay contest for my “age group”–mainly because I was the only adult who entered an essay. :bigsmile: Three other adults wrote poetry or entered beautiful quilts suited to the theme, but I was alone in my category. No competition, and I got a blue ribbon, a certificate, and twenty-five bucks. :bigsmile: Almost made it worth having to stand in front of a large crowd and read the essay.

    Seriously, that was a wonderful event. I don’t get to be involved in many patriotic experiences any more, and it was just as good as I remembered it when I was a school kid. We had opening and closing prayers, sang several patriotic songs, said the Pledge of Allegiance (another thing I don’t get to do often enough), and heard from a past and a current mayor. One school teacher saved the contest by having all the kids in her class submit entries. There were poems and essays and art by many fifth graders, and they each had the opportunity to come to the front and share their work. I was so impressed. The fifth-graders talked very intelligently about current events, their political beliefs, their knowledge of our governmental system, their feelings about our country, and their goals and dreams. One essay I heard really concerned me, though. It was written by a cute girl who wrote how she hadn’t liked Barack Obama when he first began to run for office, and she listed several valid reasons. Suddenly her essay switched gears, and she began singing his praises. It no longer sounded like her words, and she looked like she was trying to convince herself, trying to be positive about something concerning which she didn’t feel positive. I may be once again jumping to conclusions, but it seemed to me that she was parroting what a persuasive teacher had said. And I suddenly felt a little fear. I agree with the Doctrine and Covenants and other books of scripture that we need to support an elected official once he is declared a leader, even if only out of respect for his office–but here was a little girl struggling with her gut feelings, and yet conscientiously thinking she needed to shout Barack Obama’s praises because (I assume) some grownup insisted she believe those things. I felt that she hadn’t had enough water under the bridge yet to trust her own judgment and instincts–and it was too bad, because they were thoughtful instincts. I thought, “Are they getting away with this, and we aren’t aware? Are there school teachers trying to pass their political beliefs off as truth, and unassuming children are swallowing it hook, line, and sinker because a trusted teacher said so? They are so impressionable, so vulnerable at that age. Beginning to think for themselves, but so easily swayed. It worried me like it never has before. I have always been aware that teachers bring their own agendas to the classroom, but it was scary to see how effective it was for that young girl.

  • facethemusic February 17, 2009, 12:10 pm

    Way cool that your town still does those kinds of things Davidson! Sounds like Mayberry!! Okay– so add that to my descriptive list of what would make the perfect city for me on the other thread— Americana!!

    And congratulations!!!

  • agardner February 17, 2009, 12:42 pm

    That’s great Davidson! I love small towns.

  • Alison Moore Smith February 17, 2009, 1:40 pm

    posted by: facethemusicI asked her teacher if the halls were covered with stuff about Bush when he won, and of course they weren’t.

    That’s just what I was going to ask you. And that’s just what I thought the answer would be. :tongue:

    I can’t even comment on the t-shirt. Disgusting.

    davidson, I’m so proud of you for entering! Way to go!

  • Alison Moore Smith February 17, 2009, 1:41 pm

    If you’d like to email me your essay, I’ll post it on the site!

  • jennycherie February 17, 2009, 2:17 pm

    congrats, davidson!!!!!!! That sounds like a really neat program.

    Posted By: davidsonAre there school teachers trying to pass their political beliefs off as truth, and unassuming children are swallowing it hook, line, and sinker because a trusted teacher said so?

    sadly, yes. While we have not experienced this with our classroom teachers, we have seen a LOT of it with the paraprofessionals (aka teacher’s aides) that have more and more contact with our kids. Just an important reminder to TALK to our kids.

  • Amy E February 17, 2009, 2:20 pm

    Congratulations, davidson!

    Posted By: davidsonI thought, “Are they getting away with this, and we aren’t aware? Are there school teachers trying to pass their political beliefs off as truth, and unassuming children are swallowing it hook, line, and sinker because a trusted teacher said so? They are so impressionable, so vulnerable at that age. Beginning to think for themselves, but so easily swayed.

    I believe in many ways there are teachers that pass their political beliefs off as truth, but for many of them it may be unintentional only because it’s all they’ve ever been taught. When my youngest sister was in high school, one of her teachers went to high school with me and she taught things like Columbus was a murderer and my sister was the only one to challenge her with a different perspective. Her teacher went to the local state university where some of my siblings have gone and most of the professors there are left of center in their political beliefs. Many students with different political beliefs have a hard time there with teachers that infuse their political beliefs into whatever they are teaching and are not tolerant of other viewpoints. I understand that it is a problem in universities across the nation.

    For me, this is another reason for parents to know what their children are being taught in school and not leave the schooling just to the teachers because children, teens, and even young adults are impressionable. If we want our children to understand our value system and political beliefs, we’re probably going to have to be the ones to teach them.

  • davidson February 17, 2009, 2:50 pm

    One of the scary things our mayor told us about last night was concerning a book he is reading by a Senator from Rexburg. I’m going to botch this, and if any of you have further information to set me straight, I’d be interested in it–but somewhere in the world, an effort is being made to rewrite history books. There are teachers who want to teach that the Holocaust didn’t really happen. They want history books for children to indicate that. This leaves me flabbergasted. I have never heard of people wanting to rewrite history, except for possibly the Lamanites, whose oral histories differed greatly from the record the Nephites kept. I just read it a few days ago: they believed “that they (the Lamanites) were driven out of the land of Jerusalem because of the iniquities of their fathers, and that they were wronged in the wilderness by their brethren, and they were also wronged while crossing the sea; and again, that they were wronged while in the land of their first inheritance, after they had crossed the sea, and all this because that Nephi was more faithful in keeping the commandments of the Lord–therefore, he was favored of the Lord.”

    I’m actually thankful my Dutch Jew father-in-law passed away in 2000, before such a thing could be recorded in history books. He lived through the Holocaust and then escaped to America. Many of his neighbors and relatives didn’t.

    Oh! What questions to ask? I worry about the false things they could be learning at school and swallowing whole because they erroneously think we and all other adults believe those things. I remember once we had a fun thread here about things we never thought we’d say as mothers, or something like that. Maybe we need to have a thread about things we never thought we’d have to ask as mothers, but should.

  • davidson February 17, 2009, 2:53 pm

    Oh, and thank you for your kind comments about the essay. πŸ™‚

  • davidson February 17, 2009, 2:57 pm

    I thought I kept your email address, but I guess I didn’t. Either that, or someone else deleted it. Would you tell me again?

  • Michelle D February 17, 2009, 6:16 pm

    Congrats on the essay, Davidson! What a great experience!

  • Alison Moore Smith February 17, 2009, 6:20 pm

    smitham@mormonmomma.com

    Do you want it attributed to Serena Davidson??? This will be a great, positive contribution. Thanks!

  • Naismith February 17, 2009, 8:08 pm

    he’s black and a democrat fully supporting the NEA,

    This simply isn’t true. Obama was supported by the NEA reluctantly. All the teacher’s unions have real problems with his ideas about accountability in education, in which he is really closer to most Republicans.

    I agree with your concerns about the t-shirt incident and don’t condone that in the least.

    But please let’s get the facts straight on Obama’s education philosophy.

  • facethemusic February 17, 2009, 10:09 pm

    First, I said HE supports the NEA. Not that the NEA supports him.
    However– they DO support him. They always support the democrat.
    They may disagree on a few things– but he supports them, and they support him.

  • nanacarol February 18, 2009, 10:44 am

    Good job davidson!!! Thanks for getting involved!! This where change can begin-one person-one experience at a time!

  • Alison Moore Smith February 18, 2009, 7:23 pm

    Posted By: NaismithI agree with your concerns about the t-shirt incident and don’t condone that in the least.

    :cheer: Love ya, Naismith.

  • Alison Moore Smith February 20, 2009, 12:56 am

    Everyday this bailout stuff gets more and more absurd. Tarp I, Tarp II, Stimulus I, Stimulus II. What’s next?

    As genius chief of staff Rahm Emanuel said, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. Things that we had postponed for too long, that were long-term, are now immediate and must be dealt with. This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before.”

    Yea, back when people were thoughtful and sane. Now with the sky falling, they can pass anything, while we all squawk.

    Let’s see, you aren’t spending as much as we think you should on stuff you don’t want to spend it on. So, we–the all powerful government–will take billions of your dollars and spend it FOR you where WE think it should be spent.

    Someone, please, make sense of this for me.

    Today I heard, with my own ears, Obama say in a speech that he was going to get legislation passed that would allow JUDGES to LOWER MORTGAGES to the CURRENT MARKET VALUE of homes. I nearly fell out of my truck onto the pavement. I wanted to grab the remote and rewind the DVR. Are you kidding me?

    I can think of about 798 billion reasons why this is IDIOTIC!

  • Naismith February 20, 2009, 10:32 am

    I am not going to try to “make sense” of the entire mishmash of bailout. I am too busy putting together cancer research grant proposals to take advantage of the millions of dollars coming into NIH.

    But I do have to say how thrilled I am that finally funding was passed for the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, which goes by different names (“Healthy Families” in California, “KidCare” in several states). What a great way to spend tax dollars, in preventive services that save on treatment costs and lives and quality of life.

    We Mormons talk about taking personal responsibility, and many of us have problems with “socialized medicine,” but I’ve never met a Relief Society president or bishop who didn’t LOVE the SCHIP program. Without it, our choices would be so much more difficult. I think it must be much easier to serve in the church in Australia or Canada, where health care costs are so much less of an issue.

  • kiar February 20, 2009, 10:56 am

    The problem with the Canadian Health care system, is that you can never get into see a doctor when you need to, because they are soooo backed up, and this results in the Emergency rooms being full to capacity almost every day. You can’t get things like MRI’s and CAT scans immediatly, even if it is a life threatening event, unless some serious strings are pulled. Yes, the health care is free, but it does come at a cost. Doctors are at thier breaking points, overloaded with patients, who in turn are not recieving the best care possible. Many people who need lifesaving surgeries are resorting to paying for it out of pocket, in other countries.
    My uncle recently died, due to throat cancer, and he ended up not being able to fight the disease because the resources to help him such as surgeries and new meds were just not available in the timeframe he needed it to be (in Canada).
    Health care may not cost anything up there, but it is definatly an issue.

  • davidson February 20, 2009, 11:01 am

    What a sad thing, Kiar. I am sorry about your uncle. Seeing victims of a system, up close and personal, is sobering.

  • Alison Moore Smith February 20, 2009, 11:55 am

    Posted By: NaismithI am not going to try to “make sense” of the entire mishmash of bailout. I am too busy putting together cancer research grant proposals to take advantage of the millions of dollars coming into NIH.

    How noble of you. Who cares where the money comes from. Who cares what happens in the future. Take it while you can get it.

    I’ve never met a Relief Society president or bishop who didn’t LOVE the SCHIP program.

    Meet me, Naismith.

    I think it must be much easier to serve in the church in Australia or Canada, where health care costs are so much less of an issue.

    Americans are clamoring for Canadian citizenship just to get a part of it.

  • spande2 February 20, 2009, 9:44 pm

    Davidson, the Holocaust has already been removed from textbooks in the UK. They are not allowed to teach it because Muslims refuse to acknowledge it and don’t want it taught. So it is no longer a part of world history. Wouldn’t it be nice if all the pain and suffering it caused could be so easily erased?

  • spande2 February 20, 2009, 9:58 pm

    Textbooks in the U.S. have been rewritten too, by the way. For generations, at least in most the schools I have observed, real history has not been taught. (Yes, I know history is subjective. But the “history” that is being taught now is without basis in fact. It is made up of accusations that cannot be proved, made against people who cannot defend themselves.) Most of the children I know, who are not home schooled, think that Columbus was an ethnocentric creep and that the founding fathers were athiestic perverts. They all were certainly imperfect human beings and products of their time period, to some extent. But, they were also exceptionally intelligent, dedicated, well-educated and capable and they believed in a power that was higher than themselves, even though they didn’t believe in the established religions of the day (this doesn’t include Columbus who was unquestionably Catholic). (Interesting, huh?)

    So, what I’m trying to say is we’ve been duped for generations, to some extent only by omission, but often through intentional retelling of the stories to make Americans feel dirty and cheap. It can be remedied, though. If you’re interested in places to begin, let me know. πŸ™‚ I can send you a reading list.

  • Ray February 21, 2009, 5:39 am

    Most of the children I know, who are not home schooled, think that Columbus was an ethnocentric creep and that the founding fathers were athiestic perverts.

    That’s a charge I hear all the time from those who homeschool, but it wasn’t in the textbooks I used when I was a teacher, and it’s not in any of the textbooks my kids have had in school. I also don’t know any of their friends who believe that the Founding Fathers were atheists or perverts. Can you supply a link to an actual textbook or article about this? As a former history teacher, I’d like to read it.

  • jennycherie February 21, 2009, 7:52 am

    honestly, our only complaint as far as history for my kids is that it is not taught at ALL until middle school because our elementary schools are working so hard just to get the kids reading before middle school.

  • Ray February 21, 2009, 5:31 pm

    I understand hyperbole, Alison. I don’t like it, generally, unless it is necessary. In this case, it’s not necessary. It simply reinforces two stereotypes: 1) that held by those who actually believe it and don’t know it’s hyperbole; 2) that held by those being disparaged, who (rightly) don’t appreciate the hyperbole and react by categorizing anyone who complains about the lack of religion in textbooks as right wing nut jobs. This type of hyperbole makes it much harder to deal with the actual problem.

    There’s a HUGE difference between, “Most students in public schools have no idea how important religion was to Columbus and the Founding Fathers,” and, “Most of the children I know, who are not home schooled, think that Columbus was an ethnocentric creep and that the founding fathers were atheistic perverts.” I agree completely with the first; I don’t know of anyone of my kids’ friends who believe the second one – especially in regard to the Founding Fathers.

  • Alison Moore Smith February 21, 2009, 9:37 pm

    You don’t know anyone who thought the founding father were atheists and, for example, that Thomas Jefferson was a letch who raped his slaves?

  • facethemusic February 21, 2009, 11:19 pm

    the Holocaust has already been removed from textbooks in the UK. They are not allowed to teach it because Muslims refuse to acknowledge it and don’t want it taught.

    How completely obnoxious.

  • facethemusic February 22, 2009, 1:15 am

    I moved this comment– I posted it to the wrong thread, but it won’t let me just “erase” my whole comment. It’s says I have to enter SOMETHING.

    La la la la la

  • davidson February 22, 2009, 8:52 am

    Thanks, Kristen, for supplying the information I was looking for. I couldn’t remember which group of people wanted the Holocaust removed from history books, or where it had happened, and I appreciate your input.

    Do the rest of you find yourselves asking the Joseph Smith questions in regard to history? What is real? Who of all these parties is right, and how shall I know it? “History” is such a subjective thing. You’d think, dealing with facts, it would be trustworthy, but I guess “history” depends in large part on how human beings view the facts. I remember an All in the Family episode once in which Archie and the Meathead each had an opportunity to recount an event that happened the previous day. Archie maintained that a surly black repairman had come to the house to fix the fridge and pulled a machetti on him. Meathead was certain that a bowing and scraping, pitiable African-American had come to the house to fix the fridge and had used his small pocket knife to merely cut an apple for lunch. Gloria had another point of view, and so did Edith. They all firmly believed their point of view was right. It wasn’t a simple matter of determining who was correct; apparently, each of them had one or two aspects of their beliefs correct, and others that were off-base. Archie, of course, told Edith how stupid she was for believing what she believed, and she said, “Oh! The repairman accidentally left his knife at the house, and I have it right here!” From her purse she pulls a tiny pen knife, and the episode closes with the audience laughing at the shocked look on Archie’s face.

    I don’t usually extract my life-directing truths from All in the Family episodes, but that one stood out to me, I think because the writer had captured a human truth: we see things differently, and the differences can be honest. There is always the quest to find the truth, but conflicting accounts of the truth don’t necessarily point to dishonesty on the part of one; it is just evidence that we are only capable of telling the truth AS WE SEE IT. I guess we’ve seen that here often enough.

    That’s what I love about the scriptures; the truths are distilled for us, and we can trust them. Of course, there are some who try to twist those simple and pure truths to meet their agendas, but in the end, God knows the truth and shares it with us, and scripture-reading doesn’t have to be such a cautionary experience.

  • davidson February 22, 2009, 10:29 am

    HA! What a treat to see that again, Jenn; thank you. I didn’t know you could use YouTube to do that!

    We watch Archie Bunker a lot, just to unwind and laugh. I think he’s a great actor. Don’t know how he can do what he does and keep a straight face.

  • Ray February 22, 2009, 11:15 am

    You don’t know anyone who thought the founding father were atheists and, for example, that Thomas Jefferson was a letch who raped his slaves?

    Correct. Many of them know he had a baby with one of his slaves, but none of them thought he raped her. I’ve always heard her described as a mistress, not as a raped slave. I don’t know a single person who was told by a public school teacher that Jefferson was a lecherous pervert, and I haven’t read a major public school textbook that taught it. I know there are teachers making that charge (especially college professors), but I’ve never seen it in a textbook for grades lower than college.

    That is the root of my problem with much hyperbole: There is a huge difference between what is presented in a textbook and what is taught by a teacher. Much of what gets blamed on textbooks actually is the fault of the teacher. I’m not saying I like most history textbooks; I don’t, especially because of what gets left out. I understand that concern and consternation. I just don’t like inaccurate and sweeping broadsides, since they make it even harder to tackle the real issues.

    Otoh, I do know people who deny the explorers and their parties spread disease that ravaged the native populations and that Jefferson even had sex with a black salve, much less that she bore his child. They claim those things are liberal smear tactics. Granted, I only know a few of them, but I do know them.

    I just don’t approve of either extreme.

  • Alison Moore Smith February 23, 2009, 10:31 pm

    Can I ask what the significant difference is between a “mistress” who is a SLAVE and someone who has sex forced upon them is?

  • Ray February 23, 2009, 11:25 pm

    Perhaps in our day and age, nothing; perhaps for Jefferson, significant. Perhaps she saw it as rape; perhaps she didn’t. My point is that I haven’t see a major public school textbook that framed their relationship in terms of rape. Generally, those who are aware of it understand that it was long-term, produced at least one (and probably all six) of Sally’s children and included serious commitment to her and her children. (For example, he freed only 7 slaves during his life and in his will – all of whom were from the Hemings family.)

    Is anyone saying that it’s wrong for a textbook to mention the “relationship” – that mentioning it at all automatically casts Jefferson as a lecherous pervert, so it shouldn’t be mentioned?

  • spande2 February 24, 2009, 8:32 am

    No, I was not using hyperbole. It may not be in the textbooks, but it comes out in the conversations, so they’re getting it from somewhere.

    We also have several little neighbors who are convinced that you get aids from touching blood, anyone’s blood. Obviously, there is a misunderstanding on this point, but someone’s perception often becomes their reality, regardless of what they were actually told.

    Jefferson did not have children with his slaves. I’d have to do some searching to find where I read about this. (It seems like they even tell you when you tour his home that the story is untrue.) I don’t have time right now. I’ll have to get back to you.

  • spande2 February 24, 2009, 8:34 am

    “No, ma’am, that’s not history.”

  • spande2 February 24, 2009, 8:38 am

    Thank you, Alison, for the links. These are not the same sources I consulted, but so much the better. πŸ™‚

  • Naismith February 24, 2009, 8:44 am

    The problem with the Canadian Health care system, is that you can never get into see a doctor when you need to, because they are soooo backed up, and this results in the Emergency rooms being full to capacity almost every day.

    It is true that from the mid-1990s to mid 2000s the Canadian medical system was overloaded due to lack of funding. But it was much better before that, and there was a major investigation about 2003 (?) and I have seen data suggesting things have improved much since then.

    But certainly nobody worries about whether to fill a prescription. And multi-country surveys still show that Canadians are more satisfied than Americans. Sure, we have the latest technology, if you can afford it. But saying that we have a better health care system because we have the Mayo Clinic is like saying that we have the best transportation system because we have the space shuttle.

    My uncle recently died, due to throat cancer, and he ended up not being able to fight the disease because the resources to help him such as surgeries and new meds were just not available in the timeframe he needed it to be (in Canada).

    I am so sorry to hear of your loss.

    And more determined than ever to fight this vicious disease. Head and neck cancers are my area of research, as it turns out, and mortality hasn’t improved in 20 years. The surgeries are disfiguring and people most likely lose their ability to speak and eat, abilities that are marks of being a grown-up. It is a vicious, vicious disease.

  • Naismith February 24, 2009, 8:56 am

    How noble of you. Who cares where the money comes from. Who cares what happens in the future. Take it while you can get it.

    Did your parents enroll in Medicare, which is, after all “socialized medicine”? Do you intend to enroll? I am, because it is there, and I paid taxes and might as well take advantage of it. That’s how I feel about this stimulus package. It is there, and I might as well take advantage of it, when it could do some good.

    Last week I had a mollecular biologist in my conference room who, after some explanation about microRNA and cell lines, we finally realized might come up with an inexpensive noninvasive cancer test–just a swab of the inside mouth. This is huge, because most oral cancers are diagnosed too late to do much.

    And my research program does create jobs and funnel money to small businesses. The last person I hired was an unemployed African American woman. When we ask businesses to put our posters in their window or brochures on their counter, we pay them a monthly amount.

    I am a card-carrying member of the Concord Coalition and have zero debt in my personal life, but yes, if the money is there anyway, I’m gonna get some. It’s not going to change my salary at all, but it might save lives in a few years.

    I’ve never met a Relief Society president or bishop who didn’t LOVE the SCHIP program.
    Meet me, Naismith.

    Perhaps you could share with us how your ward manages without SCHIP? About 3/4 of our kids are on the program, and before that they would have to turn to the church for help with medical emergencies. How were you able to deal with all those?

  • nanacarol February 24, 2009, 9:54 am

    Naismith, I thought medicare was mandantory!!! I did not think we had a choice. My parents have really good insurance that they use second to medicare. And medicare is not no picnic so tell me socilaized medicine is good! Kiar, tell Naismith how long your mother has waited for shoulder surgery even in 2009!!! I think it is better if you listen to the facts from a person who is Canadian and lived the facts and knows the facts better than a fact finding mission on your own.
    Case in point, yesterday morning I was listening to the news on the Today show. It was how they were going to try and force the Chinese to start paying their debt to America to help Obama in his plans to enrich our nation. But they doubted if the Chinese will pay up and why–most of their factories are going out of business!!! This is what the news wants us to think. But I know for a fact that is not the case. We know a man who gets business from America and takes it to China for the chinese to build(I have never agreed with this but so be it) he just got a wonderful bonus for taking so much business to China! We only hear what people want us to hear. I would rather listen to someone other than media and so called people who write papers for us to read. I do not believe most time the figures that are posted for us to read. I believe that papers are written to justify the persons own justification to prove a point right. Any fact can be manipulated to prove a point.
    Yes, probably Jefferson and Washington did bad things. But, it is what they did for our nation that counts. Everyone of us has a bad side. Who cares!!!!!!!! I think a good case in point is David from the Bible. He committed murder and adultery but yet he rated good enough to be given a place in the Bible. It is what he wrote that has counted, not what he did in his personal life.(It does count for him—but it is the Lord who will decide).It is too bad we have such narrow minded people who think that by erasing some unforunate act of history it is going to make it go away. Having lived in Germany for two years, I will never forget the people who I met and saw who were touched by Hitler. It is too bad these people are dying away so their testimony of events will die. But I hope future generations will bear their testimony of these events and never let it die. The history books can be rewritten but voices can never be covered over!!!

  • Naismith February 24, 2009, 11:04 am

    I think it is better if you listen to the facts from a person who is Canadian and lived the facts and knows the facts better than a fact finding mission on your own.

    The catch is, a single person’s experience may or may not generalize to the entire population. It is acknowledged that surgery wait times are shorter in Ontario than in Vancouver.

    I work with several faculty from Canada, who had to become American citizens in order to qualify for tenure, and gave up their Canadian citizenship very reluctantly, because of the health care issues as well as others. We also know folks who came down for school, but had to go up there to live again because they couldn’t afford health care.

    so called people who write papers for us to read

    That’s me, right? I’m trying to figure out the “so called” part. Am I not really a person?

  • Naismith February 24, 2009, 11:09 am

    I thought medicare was mandantory!!! I did not think we had a choice.

    No, you have to actively enroll in Medicare

  • davidson February 24, 2009, 11:40 am

    I’ll ‘fess right up front. Mlinford tried and tried to teach me how to link an article, and with some embarrassment I will admit I still have not been able to do it. But I found an article in the Church News, published on February 18, 1989 (twenty years ago this month). If you question my summary of it, it would be easy to look up.

    Before I do that, I want to say I read the article you linked, Alison. It was interesting, but pretty sad. What was saddest of all was that apparently hundreds of people have spent their lives trying to prove Jefferson’s guilt or innocence concerning fathering children with a black mistress. Now that’s pathetic! Couldn’t they think of anything better to study in minute detail?

    The article in the Church News recounted Wilford Woodruff’s experience in the St. George temple when the Founding Fathers and others appeared to him in vision and requested that their temple work be done, as recorded in the Journal of Discourses. He was the St. George temple president. He complied with their wishes and performed the ordinances himself, in addition to doing the work for 50 other prominent public servants, including Christopher Columbus. A painting that depicts the matter hangs in the St. George Temple.

    After he became the president of the Church, Wilford Woodruff stated that the Founding Fathers were the best men who could be found upon the face of the earth, and it stood to reason that they would repent in the spirit world and want their ordinances done. L. Tom Perry and other current General Authorities have spoken of their high regard for these so-deemed “lecherous” individuals. Whose account can we trust? It seems reasonable that by divine revelation, the matter concerning their characters should be settled.

    That does not mean they never made any mistakes. I don’t know what the truth is about their choices while they lived on the earth. I do know they were powerful men, and their temptations may have been greater than they are for the average man. It doesn’t matter who they used to be. They had so much potential to do good, and I’m certain no one was more keenly aware of that than Satan. We know who they are NOW, and what the desires of their hearts were in subsequent years after they passed through the veil. I wonder how embarrassed the researchers will be in the life to come when they see these great men crowned and glorified, the very men they spent their lives trying to villify.

    Just a thought.

  • facethemusic February 24, 2009, 4:47 pm

    Obama has chosen David Ogden, for Deputy Attorney General. This just keeps getting worse and worse.

    http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30794

  • Alison Moore Smith February 25, 2009, 11:47 am

    Posted By: NaismithDid your parents enroll in Medicare, which is, after all “socialized medicine”?

    My parents? What do my parents have to do with this?

    Do you intend to enroll?

    It depends. It depends upon HOW MUCH I CONTRIBUTE to medicare. And isn’t that the significant difference? If I put money into medicare, then I am entitled to draw from it to the same extent I contributed. If I don’t, I’m just a drain on society.

    That’s how I feel about this stimulus package. It is there, and I might as well take advantage of it, when it could do some good.

    Last week I found a purse with $2,500 dollars and some credit cards in it. It was there, I might as well take advantage of it, when it can do some good. And I’m going to give 10% to tithing and some to the humanitarian fund. And the rest will “create jobs and stimulate the economy.”

    The last person I hired was an unemployed African American woman.

    OH! Well as long as it was an AFRICAN AMERICAN **WOMAN*** then, hey, take the money!!!!!

    …but it might save lives in a few years.

    Ah, so it MIGHT save lives in a few year. That justifies it all. Screw our kids and grandkids, because what ****I**** am doing is SOOOO important that I’m “too busy” to figure out insignificant things like where the money is coming from.

    Perhaps you could share with us how your ward manages without SCHIP? About 3/4 of our kids are on the program, and before that they would have to turn to the church for help with medical emergencies. How were you able to deal with all those?

    First, let’s clarify the issue here. You said you had NEVER met a RS president who didn’t love SCHIP. I pointed out that I was one (and, amazingly, there are lots of others). So now you can stop making that claim. Whether or not someone in my ward used SCHIP has nothing to do with it–particularly considering the fact that the RS president has no authority to either prevent nor require its use.

    Second, even recommending that someone take advantage of SCHIP (which, by the way, I never did) wouldn’t remotely imply that someone “loved” the program. That’s like saying doctors necessarily “love” chemo and radiation because they sometimes recommend them.

    I’ve had the discussion on this site repeatedly–including discussions with YOU during the election–about how I think health care should be reformed. What I do NOT think is that the reform should come from a government-controlled, socialized bureaucracy. I’d go so far to say that such is about the LEAST efficient way to reform.

    As for how to deal with medical issues IN THE CURRENT SYSTEM, it is somewhat problematic. But that doesn’t mean one must LOVE the government program and/or support INCREASED government control of health care. We might be wise to support and encourage BETTER systems. In spite of those difficulties, we made the best progress in our ward by teaching and promoting self-reliance in all sorts of ways.

    Personally, when Sam was in graduate school and I was home with two kids (because President Benson had (1) told mothers not to put their kids in daycare and (2) not to postpone families), we used WIC for a year or two. Someone told me we could qualify for food stamps. I didn’t even know what they were, but checked into it. We easily qualified and it was a huge financial relief. We had been using them for almost a semester when President Benson gave us the triple whammy. In another blunt fireside address, he told the student body that Mormons shouldn’t be…I think the term he used was “leeches on society.” We shouldn’t have others supporting us, even while we were in school. We should be responsible for our choices and our finances and do what it took.

    Wow. Another moment of me being angry at the prophet.

    Long story short, we dropped the food stamps and the WIC. I started a home business doing desktop publishing while the kids were sleeping. I also did temp work at Novell when Sam could be home with the kids. I got most of our non-food items (cleaning, hygiene, etc.) free (and sometimes made a little money) by following ads, using double coupons rebates, combined. Most of our Christmas, birthday gifts were free from saving reward points. We ate incredibly cheaply using all sorts of methods (scratch, bulk, co-op, coupons, super cheap food). We swapped and bartered for babysitting, etc. We rode our bikes most places. Sam did extra work, in addition to his research assistanceship and full-time school, programming, etc. Whatever was needed.

    We couldn’t afford regular health coverage, so we got catastrophic health care coverage only and used a clinic for most things and the health department for vaccinations (much cheaper than the doctor). Last year we had another health coverage crisis due to a pre-existing condition (I believe I already wrote about it), but with many hours of work and determination we were, fortunately, able to work it out.

    About a year before Sam got his PhD, we were struggling a great deal and moved in with my parents (in their 60’s at the time, with my mom’s health beginning to fail). We couldn’t stand the thought of asking for that–even though we knew my parents would be amenable to it–so exchanged rent for housekeeping, grocery shopping, yard work, some cooking, etc.

    To be clear, I’m not saying that anyone who uses government assistance is wrong for doing so. But obviously our system is overwhelmed and I CAN tell you (from being a RS president, giving workshops, etc.) that far too many people think they are ENTITLED to be cared for by someone else. Far too many completely ABLE-BODIED ADULTS would rather get a handout than…yes…work their tails off.

    During one of Obama’s “town meetings” a guy got up and said he’d lost his job. He complained that his unemployment check didn’t pay him AS MUCH as his former paycheck had. Hello? He’s surprised that he doesn’t make as much for sitting home on the couch as he did in the factory? An Obama supporter at the inauguration ceremony screamed into the camera her joy at “not having to save for gas and her mortgage” because “I took care of Obama and now he’s going to take care of me.” Wow.

    We’ve got an enormous mentality in this country that says, “I’ll vote for you if you give me stuff!” Pity the fool who actually works hard and succeeds. The burden is theirs alone.

    One of my favorite movies is Cinderella Man, based on the true story of Jim Braddock. The story takes place in the REAL depression. It is a story of honor, independence, sacrifice. Did he take a handout? Yes. When he was destitute. And then he paid it back. Not through the government, “Oh, my taxes are payback enough.” but out of his pocket when it wasn’t required. That’s what the American Spirit is to me.

  • facethemusic February 25, 2009, 5:45 pm

    Cinderella Man is SERIOUSLY a good flick! Loved that one!

  • spande2 February 25, 2009, 10:06 pm

    I’ll have to watch that movie. Amen to your comments, Alison.

    Davidson: I also appreciate your comments on the Jefferson/Founding Fathers issue.

  • Lewis_Family February 25, 2009, 10:17 pm

    Total threadjack here, but funny story.
    On my bro’s birthday year before last ( so he was turning 20 ) he had a bunch of his friend’s over for a big spaghetti dinner. All the boys were out on the porch while we girls were inside watching a movie. His one friend came in for more and asked what we were watching and I said “Cinderella Story” and he smiled and said “That’s a great movie! I’ll stay in here with you guys” and sat down on the couch. We kind of looked at each other and were like, ok, so I said “Don’t worry, if they guys ask we will tell them it’s sports” and he was like what? As my bro came in for more and was like “Dude, what are you doing?” and he said “Watching Cinderella Man” Oh no he wasn’t πŸ™‚ For those who don’t know, Cinderella Story has Hillary Duff and some blonde kid from the WB in it as opposed to Russell Crowe and Rene Zellwegger. Needless to say, he didn’t stay πŸ™‚

  • davidson February 25, 2009, 10:50 pm

    HA, Lewis!

    Thanks, Spande.

  • facethemusic February 26, 2009, 4:15 pm

    Not dependent on their credit score????? Hello?
    My grandparents were veterans, my father was a veteren, my husband is a veteran– I’ve got a brother in Afghanistan, but even I think this is stupid.

  • facethemusic February 26, 2009, 4:15 pm

    Did you check out the scoop on David Ogden?– he’s a real peach.

  • Alison Moore Smith February 26, 2009, 6:16 pm

    What lies ahead?

    Obama says we’ll all benefit if the GOVERNMENT stops the “downward spiral” in the housing market. Can someone explain to me how that will happen?

  • Naismith February 26, 2009, 7:00 pm

    Screw our kids and grandkids,

    Funny thing, that’s exactly what I was saying six years ago when it was clear that the invasion of Iraq would dig our national budget into a huge pit. Why is it okay to screw our kids and grandkids in order to kill Iraqis, but not to attempt to prevent another Depression?

    I totally agree that screwing our kids and grandkids is a problem. I have been an active supporter of the Concord Coalition for years.

    because what ****I**** am doing is SOOOO important that I’m “too busy” to figure out insignificant things like where the money is coming from.

    I’m a pragmatist. Neither what I do nor what you do has any difference on what happens in Washington. What details each of us knows about it does not change the outcome. You can win when it comes to knowing the details; I prefer to spend my time other ways.

    You don’t get to vote on the stimulus package, and neither do I. I just get to decide whether to write a grant or not. Those dollars

    are

    going to be spent on research whether I do anything about it or not.

    I happen to think that those dollars would be better spent on saving lives from a vicious cancer than developing a new erectile dysfunction drug. Do you really think I would be a more moral person if I decline to apply for any of those grants?

    Regarding your purse analogy, I can’t give the lady her purse back. I would if I could, but I can’t. So yes, I’m going to bust my butt to get as much of that money as I can, on behalf of those I serve.

    First, let’s clarify the issue here. You said you had NEVER met a RS president who didn’t love SCHIP. I pointed out that I was one (and, amazingly, there are lots of others). So now you can stop making that claim.

    No problem. I won’t make the claim, and I thought I had acknowledged that, when I asked you for more info about how you do things without it. Because in my everyday life and service in the church, I had never met anyone who didn’t praise the program.

    Whether or not someone in my ward used SCHIP has nothing to do with it–particularly considering the fact that the RS president has no authority to either prevent nor require its use.

    I was hoping to learn from you. Because in leadership meetings, people I work with express great gratitude for the program, that it helps so much to lessen the hard choices of how to spend welfare dollars, and frees up time to take care of things that are important but less urgent than worrying about a kid going deaf from an untreated ear infection. They see it as very positive.

    You don’t, and I’d like to learn why your way is seen as better.

    …that far too many people think they are ENTITLED to be cared for by someone else.

    Where I live, we have the opposite problem. People don’t like to accept welfare. SCHIP is more acceptable, because they do pay premiums. Those premiums are nominal, and some state administrators complain that the state loses money in the collection process, but folks feel that they are contributing, and the $25 a month is often a stretch for them.

  • nanacarol February 26, 2009, 8:14 pm

    Before I commented I did a little research. I wanted to know what SCHIP program is. What is so wrong in using it. For goodness sake we all pay our taxes!!!!! We have a right to be able to have something from our goverment. This is how they can help me. I am not afraid to say I have used food stamps, Medical when needed. Why should my sole dependance be upon the church and tax it unnecessarily. In fact, more members are being encouraged to use it. Using what our goverment can give us is not wrong as long as we don’t over abuse it just like with assistance within the church. We have to learn to be depent on ourselves and help ourselves also. There are many creative ways to do it and we all do it at some point!!! I thnk we have a tendecy as humans and LDS to develope some real guilt trip on ourselves when we hear comments like from Pres. Benson. Alison, were you really being a Leech on society for using something like WIC or Food stamps when it is being funded by our own families taxes!!!! Pres. Benson was just saying don’t make a habit of it and don’t use it for life. We have rights just like everyother American in this country. Just because we are LDS does not mean we are excluded from being helped by our goverment. I know that when our country needs us we are step up and do what is necessary. We give freely to disaster relief, we make quilts, we lend our backs to digging out mud etc. I really don’t think the Lord will penalize us for using our goverment resourses when we need to.
    I think most of us give back more than we use!! So lets give ourselves a break and be so tough on ourselves.

  • Alison Moore Smith February 26, 2009, 9:07 pm

    Posted By: NaismithFunny thing, that’s exactly what I was saying six years ago when it was clear that the invasion of Iraq would dig our national budget into a huge pit.

    Wait, so YOU’RE the only one who had accurate intel about the WMD’s? Why didn’t you say so???

    Why is it okay to screw our kids and grandkids in order to kill Iraqis, but not to attempt to prevent another Depression?

    Naismith, I happen to think you’re not as stupid as that statement. So why say it? There isn’t anything in that statement that is remotely honest or meaningful.

    Was the war started “to kill Iraquis”? Did anyone say doing so was “okay”? How is any idea about the war a defense for the bailout? Most to the point, how is spending trillions that we don’t have going to “prevent another Depression”? Please, at least address the last issue.

    I totally agree that screwing our kids and grandkids is a problem.

    Except when you get to spend their money on your pet projects.

    Neither what I do nor what you do has any difference on what happens in Washington.

    That’s EXACTLY what I said! I found that wallet of money. Heck, nothing I do would make a difference. I mean the police will just steal the cash anyway. I will do better paying tithing with it and spending it on GOOD stuff.

    Do you really think I would be a more moral person if I decline to apply for any of those grants?

    Naismith, believe it or not, I understand your points. There will come a time when it is not even possible to determine what monies came from this insane “stimulus” bill and what didn’t. So it’s not even realistic to tell people not to ever take any money.

    But I take serious issue with the idea that you can just be too busy to worry about where the money is coming from. It’s coming from your children and grandchildren. Period. And sitting back and stroking yourself for “doing good” with it–at their expense–is unconsciounable to me.

    Go ahead and write your grants, but maybe think about screaming at your fearless leader for screwing your kids at the same time. I mean, you were speaking out against the war effort six years ago, right? Why not do the same now?

    You don’t, and I’d like to learn why your way is seen as better.

    Why is it better to be self-reliant than government reliant?

    Where I live, we have the opposite problem. People don’t like to accept welfare.

    As far as I know, you’re pretty anonymous on the blogs, but could you give us more details? I’d like to know the demographics of a place that doesn’t have a problem with abuse of welfare.

    Posted By: nanacarolI wanted to know what SCHIP program is. What is so wrong in using it.

    nanacarol, if you read my posts, you will see that I didn’t say there was anything necessarily “wrong” in using it. I said I don’t “love” it. As I said, I don’t love it because I think the government is about the least efficient method around to run just about anything. That said, I do think it’s wrong to use it unless absolutely necessarily. As Naismith said, the state loses money on it. And let’s be clear, what that means is that OTHER PEOPLE PAY FOR IT.

    For goodness sake we all pay our taxes!!!!! We have a right to be able to have something from our goverment.

    I get really scared when I hear sentiments like that. Tell me, what exactly DO You have a “right” to get from your government?

    Why should my sole dependance be upon the church and tax it unnecessarily.

    You shouldn’t. You should depend on yourself and, if need be, your family.

    Using what our goverment can give us is not wrong as long as we don’t over abuse it just like with assistance within the church.

    That’s where we’ll have to disagree. I don’t believe in using whatever we can get from the government. That’s why we stopped using food stamps and WIC when President Benson taught us that.

    Alison, were you really being a Leech on society for using something like WIC or Food stamps when it is being funded by our own families taxes!!!! Pres. Benson was just saying don’t make a habit of it and don’t use it for life

    .

    To be clear, no, absolutely not–he was NOT just saying “don’t make a habit of it.” The talk was given at BYU to BYU students and he told us in no uncertain terms that we had no right to be requiring others to support us. It wasn’t a general statement to everyone, but I do think the principles apply as far as circumstances are similar (able-bodied people, etc.).

    It’s not about whether or not *I* pay taxes into the system. (Of course we paid back our WIC soon after graduation.) It’s about the generally agreed PURPOSE of the welfare system. I don’t even know what that is anymore. But I’ll tell you what it is for ME. For me, welfare is something you only take when in the most desperate or unusual circumstances, for a SHORT period of time, when you have no other alternative, while making every possible effort to stop taking it. We have agreed, as a society, that when someone is in those circumstances, we are willing to pool our resources to protect them. I don’t think I have a “right” to welfare, except in those circumstances.

    That one semester we got food stamps, for example, we did not eat anything that was what I would call “unessential.” WIC is fairly strict in what it allows (in odd ways sometimes), but food stamps aren’t so limited. But I felt it would be unfair for me to buy convenience foods, soda, chips–STUFF I COULDN’T AFFORD WHEN IT WAS MY OWN MONEY–when it was someone else footing the bill. To me, it seemed that if I could afford to get that kind of stuff, then I was getting more welfare than was warranted.

    I’m not necessarily setting that as the ideal standard, but giving it as a idea to consider. We should all have some idea of what we think government assistance is for and when and where it is appropriate.

  • Alison Moore Smith February 27, 2009, 11:00 am

    Amy, thanks so much for the sources.

    To me it’s a bit like this. During my life I have definitely asked my parents for money! Even as an adult, on a couple of occasions, they offered help with something. Sometimes as a loan and sometimes as a gift. They helped all of us kids in particular situations when needed. But my parents have NEVER asked for money from us. Never. Ever.

    After eight years of harassing him, my dad finally agreed–last November–to move in with us when we finish the new house. I have no doubt that he’ll be contributing more than he’s consuming as long as he is able. That’s the way he is and the way I was raised. They have lived very frugally their entire lives in order to “not be a burden” to their kids. I don’t think of my parents as a burden–and wouldn’t–but they made sure they would not depend on us financially except in the most severe and unusual of circumstances. Like armageddon.

    In the same way, I won’t ask my KIDS to support me. I just think it’s backwards. And I don’t think it’s right or fair or ethical or moral to saddle our children and grandchildren with paying for OUR honey bee insurance, our train to Vegas, our smoking cessation programs, our abortions, or much of anything else.

  • facethemusic February 27, 2009, 3:45 pm

    Don’t forget tattoo removal.

  • spande2 February 27, 2009, 4:21 pm

    I feel like we’re having two different discussions here, so, Davidson and anyone else who is interested, I’m going to move the education part to a different thread.

  • davidson February 28, 2009, 10:00 am

    Good answer, Amy.

  • Alison Moore Smith February 28, 2009, 1:55 pm

    Yes, when I think of stimulating the economy, the FIRST THING that comes to mind is tattoo removal. Without that, disaster strikes.

  • Naismith March 1, 2009, 8:58 am

    There isn’t anything in that statement that is remotely honest or meaningful.

    The point is that President Bush is the one who started the current budget deficit (the budget was balanced under Clinton). A lot of us have been concerned about “screwing our children and grandchildren” for years, decades. In fact, the reason my Republican husband, who supported McCain in 2004, switched to Obama, was the January 08 debate. This was the one where Republican and Democrats debated one after the other, and Obama was the only candidate of either party to bring up the budget deficit.

    Given the prominence that the budget deficit was given in the recent state of the union address, it seems a bit disproportionate to slam Obama but not Bush for “screwing our children and grandchildren.”

    Most to the point, how is spending trillions that we don’t have going to “prevent another Depression”? Please, at least address the last issue.

    Please listen to any news program outside Fox network, where many economists are making that point, looking to the lessons learned from Japan’s recent profound recession as well as the Great Depression of the US. Last weekend Republican Gov. Scwarznegger gave many interviews in support of the stimulus package for that reason.

    Why is it better to be self-reliant than government reliant?

    I absolutely think that self-reliant is better. That’s what the church teaches.

    But perhaps our definition of “self-reliant” differs. Fact is, most members of the church live outside of the United States. They live in countries with a more structured social safety net than the US. And I don’t see those systems as evil. Alison, I respect your differing views on these issues, but please don’t try to claim that yours are more in line with living the gospel. I joined the church in Western Europe, lived in South America, and traveled in Taiwan, all places with universal health coverage. Small businesses thrive, because people don’t have to worry about losing health coverage when they leave a Big Company to pursue their entrepreneurial dream. They are faithful members of the church there, and nobody at church tells them their health coverage is evil.

    Where I live, we have the opposite problem. People don’t like to accept welfare.

    As far as I know, you’re pretty anonymous on the blogs, but could you give us more details? I’d like to know the demographics of a place that doesn’t have a problem with abuse of welfare.

    I am not saying that we don’t have a problem with abuse of welfare, but in most such cases, there is a comorbidity with mental illness. Of the rank and file folks, many of them have a problem with accepting help.

    I don’t think this is limited to place. I don’t live in Appalachia, but I highly recommend the DVD of the CHRISTY television series to anyone who is involved with church welfare issues. There is the episode where the mission opens up a barter store in order to distribute donations to the people, and someone trades a pan of cornmeal for a used pair of shoes. The one where Christy’s mom listens patiently to a woman sharing her wisdom about herbs so that she can feel good about accepting food for her children. The one where Christy trades milk and bread for lunch to a hungry child in return for her cornhusk doll, and then begs the child the favor of caring for the doll.

    The thing is, accepting help is a blessing to all involved, those who serve as well as those who receive. And when one allows pride to put off asking for help in a timely manner, it causes an undue burden on leadership. To a bishop’s family, there is a huge difference between someone making an appointment with the executive secretary on Sunday night for a time during the bishop’s usual office hours on Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, versus calling the bishop’s house at 10 p.m. on Thursday night with a crisis. Not only does it mean taking time away from his family right then, but it might mean taking time off work the next morning, and asking the Relief Society president to stop what she is doing, and so on. In a locality with a Bishop’s storehouse in town, it’s not a huge deal because they can pick up food themselves, but it is harder in areas where food is delivered every few weeks, especially if by delaying the deadline was missed. If the bishop has to use fast offering dollars for an emergency trip to the grocery store, then he will have to justify to the stake why he failed to address the issue in the proper manner.

    So I have felt the downside of people not wanting to ask for help.

    And let’s be clear, what that means is that OTHER PEOPLE PAY FOR IT.

    But let’s be clear that when it comes to health insurance, OTHER PEOPLE PAY FOR IT, in most cases. Fewer than 9% of Americans purchase their own health insurance, although I appreciate that there are a few individuals who are uninsured by choice, so let’s say 10%.

    The “ideal” form of health insurance in the US is an employer-sponsored plan. And OTHER PEOPLE PAY FOR such plans. At my university, an employee pays about $2,500 a year in payroll-deducted premiums, which is over 10% of after-tax income for an entry-level non-technical employee. But in addition, the employer (the grants I write) pays over $10,000 per year for family coverage. That’s a huge benefit that is not taxed and usually not tithed; indeed, a lot of folks have no idea how much their employer pays. I agreed with the part of John McCain’s platform that suggested those benefits be taxed. I think it would be fairer all around if everyone understood how much those benefits actually cost.

    That’s where we’ll have to disagree. I don’t believe in using whatever we can get from the government.

    Fine to disagree, as long as you make clear it is your personal opinion and not church teaching. Since the USA is one of few industrialized nations without universal health coverage, that means most LDS live in countries with universal health coverage. And the church does not tell them not to take advantage of those benefits. Just like the church does not tell folks who work for megacompanies that provide health insurance totally for free (rare nowadays, but 10 years ago there used to be quite a few) that they shouldn’t take that benefit.

    I’m not necessarily setting that as the ideal standard, but giving it as a idea to consider. We should all have some idea of what we think government assistance is for and when and where it is appropriate.

    And I think what you describe worked well in the 1950s, not so well now. Only 59.3% of Americans now get their health insurance through an employer. The system that was set up after WWII no longer works for many Americans because of spiraling costs. Medical bills have been the most common reason for bankruptcy for years. We need to find a better way. If that is more like Western Europe, so be it. I am my sister’s keeper and I don’t mind paying more taxes so that other people can be healthy.

    Amy E
    I find it very interesting, but not surprising, that an entire section of the March 2009 Ensign is focused on self-reliance. If you look at the Church’s teachings on this subject, the general counsel is that we rely on ourselves first, then our families, then the Church. The only mention I find in regards to government assistance in “Providing the Lord’s Way: A Leader’s Guide to Welfare” is on page 15.

    Let’s also look at pg. 14, where it discusses health care. Before helping with health care costs, the bishop should evaluate:

    Whether the member is fully using insurance benefits.
    Whether family members can assist.

    So in this official church document, when it comes to dealing with health care costs, it is listing health insurance first, then family, then church. This is exactly why church leaders in my area promote enrollment in SCHIP. It is a health insurance program. If I am visiting a home where a child is crying from an earache and they say they can’t afford the medicine, I would encourage them to see the bishop for help with the current problem, and hand them a brochure about SCHIP. Because they are supposed to be using health insurance before they ask family or church for help. SCHIP allows them to be self-reliant.

    Most states market their SCHIP program as health insurance rather than a government benefit.

    In one of the states where I did some evaluative work, there had already been a non-profit organization trying to make health insurance available for children, and so state government contracted with that organization to administer the SCHIP program. It is a public-private partnership.

    Naismith, if your state is like Washington state, then many people have to take SCHIP since that is the only affordable option. This, as I understand it, is because the government has regulated private insurance so much that it is prohibitively expensive for many.

    I don’t know the laws in Washington, but it is true that most states have mandates for what needs to be included in an insurance package. This is a great blessing to consumers, because it allows an apples-to-apples comparison of plans. Before such mandates, it was hard to figure out what would be covered, what not.

    But of course those apply only to standard plans, sometimes only to plans offered by employers. One can still buy the high-deductible catastrophic coverage Alison described earlier. And some states allow bare-bones flex plans like the one described in the move JOHN Q, although those haven’t sold particularly well.

    To me, the premium required by SCHIP is mostly a feel-good measure for those who would otherwise not take government assistance.

    I think there are lots of other things accomplished by SCHIP. It does get people in the habit of paying for health insurance, when perhaps they had taken it for granted under Medicaid, back when the only choices were Medicaid or nothing. And they are forced to learn the skills of reading insurance brochures, etc. which is a life skill that will be needed as they transition to private health insurance.

    It allows people to establish a “medical home” where they can turn for routine care, and that means they are no longer seeking care in hospital emergency rooms, which helps everyone, in ensuring that true emergencies can be seen in a timely manner, as well as keeping costs down (since an ER visit is a very costly way to treat an ear infection).

    SCHIP also provides a way to ensure continuity of care when their financial situation improves, since they can keep the same doctor whether on SCHIP or private insurance.

    It also pulls a lot of healthy folks into the risk pool, lowering costs for all of us.

    I think the cost of insurance has gone up for many, many reasons including malpractice lawsuits, new expensive advances in care, aging of the baby boom, and so on. Government conspiracy is far down on the list.

    It’s another way that government is trying to lull us all into accepting more and more governmental control over our lives by limiting our cho

    ices.

    I don’t see that, since they can choose their physician under SCHIP and it may be the same physician you can choose with private coverage.

    BTW, I am not a particular fan of government-run health care. I only favor universal coverage, having everyone covered, by some means or another. It make goods sense both morally and economically; if everyone had preventive care, costs to the system would be less in the long run.

  • facethemusic March 1, 2009, 9:40 am

    The point is that President Bush is the one who started the current budget deficit (the budget was balanced under Clinton).

    That’s an unfair statement for two reasons:
    First– the attack in New York City put us on an entirely different course that you can’t “blame” on Bush. Even Clinton said he would’ve gone into Iraq. So we would have been there either way.

    And second– every economist out there has agreed that the “balanced” budget Bush inherited was only balanced “on paper” and he did that by borrowing money out of the Social Security Fund. Tsk-tsk. Plus– the “budget” is entirely separate from the deficit. When Bush 1 left office the national debt was right around 4 trillion, when Clinton left it was almost 6 trillion– so the budget was balanced ON PAPER, but he spent 2 trillion more than we had and than he’d put in the budget. Spending 2 trillion dollars more than you have isn’t really a “balanced budget”, now is it? He had it all worked out on paper, but spent 2 trillion dollars more than he planned and more than we had.So let’s be honest.

    I don’t mean that to be a slam on Clinton. The debt has raised under every president. (except for Eisenhower who lowered it slightly) Under Bush it went from 6 to 10 trillion– significantly more than when Clinton left office. But you’re talking about a war– and the debt always raises significantly under a war. And notice, no one is rationing products or selling war bonds to help support the war effort to curtail as much debt as possible.

    And now Obama has signed a Stimulus package that is over 700 TRILLION. 10 trillion— 700 trillion. Let’s talk about a “balanced budget”.

  • jennycherie March 1, 2009, 9:53 am

    Posted By: facethemusicLet’s talk about a “balanced budget”.

    And don’t forget “fiscal responsibility”! πŸ˜‰

  • Ray March 1, 2009, 11:34 am

    I hope Naismith’s point about universal health care for around half the Church’s membership gets the attention it deserves. It’s really hard for most people to step back and look at the global picture and understand how cultural many of our assumptions are – and how we often conflate those cultural assumptions into views of Gospel principles that are limited by our own societal traditions.

  • facethemusic March 1, 2009, 4:09 pm

    It’s a point well made Ray, but the fact that church members in other countries get universal healthcare (sub standard, lets not forget) doesn’t mean that its a “gospel approved’ program or that it’s even a wise thing to do. Some church members live in countries where they’re legally limited to only having 1 child.

  • facethemusic March 1, 2009, 4:23 pm

    Did you Utahns know about this?

    Some “pork” in the stimulus bill

    $475,000 to build a parking garage in Provo, Utah—- anyone know what this is for?

    $1 million for “mormon cricket” (Katydid) control in Utah

  • Amy E March 1, 2009, 5:09 pm

    Posted By: Amy EIt’s another way that government is trying to lull us all into accepting more and more governmental control over our lives by limiting our choices.

    Posted By: NaismithI don’t see that, since they can choose their physician under SCHIP and it may be the same physician you can choose with private coverage.

    I guess I wasn’t clear in what I meant. Yes, you could choose the same physician regardless of the plan, but my point is that by making private insurance more difficult to buy for many to even choose because of government regulation and making government health care, which is generally more inefficient and less cost effective overall (including what we pay in taxes, etc.), the only possible choice, it is limiting the choices of what kind of coverage one might want.

  • Naismith March 2, 2009, 4:49 am

    the fact that church members in other countries get universal healthcare (sub standard, lets not forget)

    I am curious of your data source for that last assertion. Everything I have read suggests that healthcare in other western democracies is better than in the US.

  • Naismith March 2, 2009, 5:03 am

    Yes, you could choose the same physician regardless of the plan, but my point is that by making private insurance more difficult to buy for many to even choose because of government regulation

    I understand that you were saying that; I am not sure it is true. I acknowledge that part of the cost of insurance is due to mandates, but would you really want to buy a policy that doesn’t pay for well-baby visits or mammograms or immunizations? Because without those items being required, it was very, very hard for consumers to figure out what was included or not.

    But those government mandates are not the ONLY thing driving insurance costs. Insurance companies make a healthy profit and contribute a lot to congressional campaigns, etc.

    And certainly, at least in my state, the government didn’t put those mandates in place in order to make SCHIP the only alternative. They were put in place due to consumer complaints to the insurance commissioner.

    Yes, the cost of insurance is high, but there are so many other reasons for it….

    and making government health care, which is generally more inefficient and less cost effective overall (including what we pay in taxes, etc.),

    Why do you say it is more inefficient? Medicare is considered the most efficient and cost effective form of insurance out there. Much of the savings come from the fact that medical office staff deal with that one program in volume because it is so common, and know what is covered and what not. Whereas various other insurers have differing deductibles, co-pays and exclusions. Figuring out the paperwork is a huge expense to medical offices.

  • Amy E March 2, 2009, 3:52 pm

    Posted By: NaismithI acknowledge that part of the cost of insurance is due to mandates, but would you really want to buy a policy that doesn’t pay for well-baby visits or mammograms or immunizations?

    I personally wouldn’t, though I just realized that I kind of do, since my current health plan does not include immunizations, but I know of people that would buy that type of policy. They’d rather pay out of pocket and only have catastrophic coverage.

    Posted By: NaismithBut those government mandates are not the ONLY thing driving insurance costs. Insurance companies make a healthy profit and contribute a lot to congressional campaigns, etc.

    And certainly, at least in my state, the government didn’t put those mandates in place in order to make SCHIP the only alternative. They were put in place due to consumer complaints to the insurance commissioner.

    Yes, the cost of insurance is high, but there are so many other reasons for it….

    I agree that there are many other reasons for the high cost of insurance. It is a difficult and complex problem. Still, I think that if the government got out of it and left it to private organizations, a better solution could be reached than what is currently available.

    Posted By: NaismithWhy do you say it is more inefficient? Medicare is considered the most efficient and cost effective form of insurance out there. Much of the savings come from the fact that medical office staff deal with that one program in volume because it is so common, and know what is covered and what not. Whereas various other insurers have differing deductibles, co-pays and exclusions. Figuring out the paperwork is a huge expense to medical offices.

    Perhaps from the medical office and the individual perspective, it is considered most efficient and cost effective. I don’t know. I was thinking from a taxpayer perspective where the costs continue to increase and there continue to be concerns about being able to pay for it in the first place.

  • Amy E March 2, 2009, 5:19 pm

    Posted By: NaismithI am curious of your data source for that last assertion. Everything I have read suggests that healthcare in other western democracies isbetter than in the US.

    I’m curious which part of the document you linked to shows that health care in western democracies is better than in the US. The results seemed rather mixed to me.

  • Alison Moore Smith March 3, 2009, 11:41 am

    Posted By: NaismithThe point is that President Bush is the one who started the current budget deficit (the budget was balanced under Clinton).

    Was that really the point? The point of throwing around things about killing people was to say that Bush also operated (in war time) with deficit spending? I hope Ray rushes in to condemn hyperbole about now.

    A lot of us have been concerned about “screwing our children and grandchildren” for years, decades.

    Yes, a lot of us have.

    Obama was the only candidate of either party to bring up the budget deficit.

    And, boy, he’s addressed that keenly, hasn’t he?

    it seems a bit disproportionate to slam Obama but not Bush for “screwing our children and grandchildren.”

    Phhttttthhhht! I think you missed a few important points on this issue:

    • Obama is the president, not Bush. (I’ll start ranting about Jimmy Carter and Bush 41 in a minute.)
    • Obama is the one touting the joys of spending trillions of magic money.
    • If Obama is successful in passing all he “hopes” to (and we have no reason to believe he won’t), he will spend more in the first few months of his presidency than has been spent in the entire history of America up to the point of his inauguration.

    Please listen to any news program outside Fox network

    The patronizing is a bit nauseating. Really.

    Last weekend Republican Gov. Scwarznegger gave many interviews in support of the stimulus package for that reason.

    This is an endorsement? Because Mr. Olympia has such a fiscally sound state? (And please, give up the labeling by party. He’s probably not even as republican as McCain!)

    But perhaps our definition of “self-reliant” differs.

    What is yours?

    And I don’t see those systems as evil.

    I don’t either, to a point. But I see them as problematic. The more pervasive, the more problematic.

    Alison, I respect your differing views on these issues, but please don’t try to claim that yours are more in line with living the gospel.

    If you’d like to point out where I did, I’ll discuss it.

    I joined the church in Western Europe, lived in South America, and traveled in Taiwan, all places with universal health coverage. Small businesses thrive, because people don’t have to worry about losing health coverage when they leave a Big Company to pursue their entrepreneurial dream.

    I’d be interested in more information about this. Can you site some sources showing that businesses in these countries (which ones, in particular?) thrive because of socialized health care?

    I’ve said repeatedly that I believe US health care needs reform. But I’m not sure if you realize that you don’t have to work for a “Big Company” to get health care. You have to work for a company that has TWO employees.

    Of the rank and file folks, many of them have a problem with accepting help.

    I happen to think that’s a GOOD thing. We should be able to ask for help and use it when necessary, but I think the difficulty in doing so is a God-given inclination.

    I don’t live in Appalachia, but I highly recommend the DVD of the CHRISTY television series to anyone who is involved with church welfare issues.

    I vaguely remember that show. Thanks for the recommendation. But all the things you said ARE the kind of thing I think are better than what our government provides. These people were DOING what they COULD, not just sitting at home collecting a check. They were working and trading and providing in return for what the needed. That is similar to how the church structures welfare. Anyone who can work, does work.

    And when one allows pride to put off asking for help in a timely manner, it causes an undue burden on leadership.

    This is an interesting point I hadn’t considered. I think you’re right. But we still need to look at the ENTIRE affect.. I think the same pride (or desire for self-reliance, etc.) that makes SOME situations more difficult to address (because of delayed action, etc.) removes at least as many “burdens” from the picture entirely. There have been tons of times in my life when I would have loved to have, say, a meal prepared or help with my house/kids/yard because I was sick, overwhelmed, broke, whatever. But having been taught my entire life that I should take care of myself whenever possible kept me from making a request for help at all. We worked through the difficulty alone or with family or very close friends over time. We survived and, perhaps even more important, learned new skills and became stronger.

    If we are TOO ready to accept “charity” we tend to become more and more dependent upon others.

    Where the exact line between appropriate help and being a “burden” is obviously debatable. But I lean way more to the side of self-reliance than government/church reliance. And I do think that the church teachings tend to do so as well.

    The “ideal” form of health insurance in the US is an employer-sponsored plan. And OTHER PEOPLE PAY FOR such plans.

    Naismith, this statement is exactly way the Obamanation “stimulus” is so wrong for “job creation.” Other people don’t pay for it. Employeees do. As you pointed out, employees almost always have a payroll deduction for any insurances they choose (or are required) to participate in. And where do you think the “company contribution” comes from?

    We hired our first employees in 1996. The number of engineers/staff we could hire, the amount of salary we could offer, the benefits we could provide, the environment we could give were all a DIRECT FUNCTION of the COST levied by each additional employee.

    You can’t say, “Well, we have $120,000 to hire an engineer! Would you like a job paying $120,000 per year?” You have to say, “We have $120,000 to hire an engineer and the corporate matching tax is $39,000 and the unemployment tax is $6,000 and the health insurance is $10,000. Would you like a job paying $65,000?”

    The EMPLOYEES pay for their health insurance either on the front end or the back end.

    I think it would be fairer all around if everyone understood how much those benefits actually cost.

    We agree!

    I am my sister’s keeper and I don’t mind paying more taxes so that other people can be healthy.

    I believe that you probably don’t, Naismith. But those who promote government charities the most (including Obama and Biden, et al) give relatively nothing to their sisters and brothers. They DO “mind” paying for others. But they love getting votes from those who benefit when they take OTHER’S money to give away as they see fit.

    Whether the member is fully using insurance benefits. Whether family members can assist.

    Naismith, this is hardly an endorsement of socialized medicine. Of course they say to look, first, at provided benefits. And considering that almost all Americans pay for their own insurance, it’s a no-brainer.

    BTW, I am not a particular fan of government-run health care. I only favor universal coverage, having everyone covered, by some means or another. It make goods sense both morally and economically; if everyone had preventive care, costs to the system would be less in the long run.

    We might find some common ground in this. What do you mean by “universal coverage”? Everyone is covered for what services?

  • Alison Moore Smith March 3, 2009, 11:44 am

    Obama intends to lift the “conscience rule.” Read that: if you work in health care, you WILL perform abortions.

    Change we can believe in.

  • jennycherie March 3, 2009, 12:45 pm

    Posted By: Alison Moore SmithIf we are TOO ready to accept “charity” we tend to become more and more dependent upon others.

    I don’t know if I can find the quote, but I was reading earlier “Up From Slavery” by Booker T. Washington. One of the things he mentioned, oddly enough, was the harm that slavery did to WHITE people because it made them DEPENDENT. He said that after the slaves were freed, obviously, things were a long way from fair or equal for the freed slaves, but he felt that they had an easier time adjusting (compared to their previous owners) because they had skills and had no aversion to work whereas many white people had no skills and believed it was uncivilized for them to work. Just a little side note. . .

  • jennycherie March 3, 2009, 12:56 pm

    wait! Here it is!

    From p. 17:
    The hurtful influences of the institution [of slavery] were not by any means confined to the Negro. This was fully illustrated by the life upon our own plantation. The whole machinery of slavery was so constructed as to cause labour, as a rule, to be looked upon as a badge of degradation, of inferiority. Hence labour was something that both races on the slave plantation sought to escape. The slave system on our place, in a large measure, took the spirit of self-reliance and self-help out of the white people. My old master had many boys and girls, but no one, so far as I knew, ever mastered a single trade or special line of productive industry. . .

    When freedom came, the slaves were almost as well fitted to begin life anew as the master. . . The slave owner and his sons had mastered no special industry. They unconsciously had imbibed the feeling that manual labour was not the proper thing for them. On the other hand, the slaves, in many cases, had mastered some handicraft, and none were shamed, and few unwilling, to labour.

  • Ray March 3, 2009, 1:31 pm

    I hope Ray rushes in to condemn hyperbole about now.

    I actually had that thought, but I was rushing elsewhere and couldn’t comment. :tongue:

  • Alison Moore Smith March 3, 2009, 2:52 pm

    Just making sure you were awake, Ray. πŸ˜‰

    jennycherie, that is a great, great insight. As I listen to the reactions during this uncertainty, I hear people calling for investment in gold. Well, if the world goes to hell in a handbasket, I think the farmers and gun manufactures will be doing better than most. So few of us really know how to do anything when it comes to survival.

    But I really wish this sentiment were talked about more. The stats on, for example, black families are staggering when you see the correlation to welfare and family breakdown.

  • Oregonian March 3, 2009, 2:58 pm

    what a sick power grab from obama. i wonder who would be the president if only people who actually paid taxes got to vote.

  • jennycherie March 3, 2009, 3:35 pm

    Posted By: Alison Moore SmithThe stats on, for example, black families are staggering when you see the correlation to welfare and family breakdown.

    So true! Have any of you read Star Parker’s book, Uncle Sam’s Plantation? It really talks about this very thing.

  • Alison Moore Smith March 4, 2009, 9:58 am

    As long as we’re talking about the morality of helping others, let’s note that not only do democrats (“the party of compassion”), collectively, give only a fraction of the charitable donations given by republicans, but apparently Obama’s entire cabinet is comprised of tax cheats. Obama’s “caring” people don’t give at home–and they don’t give at the office either.

  • Naismith March 4, 2009, 8:37 pm

    Perhaps from the medical office and the individual perspective, it is considered most efficient and cost effective. I don’t know. I was thinking from a taxpayer perspective where the costs continue to increase and there continue to be concerns about being able to pay for it in the first place.

    The reason that SCHIP has received bipartisan support is that it is the most cost effective way to care for children. Take a child with asthma: If they have an uncontrolled attack, it requires probably an ER visit and a hospitalization. The hospital can’t turn them away because it is life threatening, so your kid with a broken arm will be have to wait another 3o minutes, and your bill will be higher because of the uncompensated care. However, if that child can be treated in a pediatrician’s office and given an inhaler, they can most often deal with the attack and not need the expensive, intensive care.

    So it is very cost effective to do it the latter way.

    I’m curious which part of the document you linked to shows that health care in western democracies is better than in the US. The results seemed rather mixed to me.

    It is true that the record is mixed. Different health care systems have strength and weaknesses in different areas. In every study I’ve ever seen, the US has the highest per capita cost, lowest wait times for elective surgery, highest rate of folks saying they delayed getting needed medical care because of cost. The US never leads in infant mortality or life expectancy.

    So it’s like buying a house, not all of the different features have the same importance. A house might have a great living room, but if it is in a bad school zone, that was not acceptable to me. Even though that house led in living rooms, schools were more important.

    That’s how it is with health care. I think infant mortality is more important that being able to have plastic surgery right away. And on the things that matter most from a public health perspective, the US tends to be near the bottom of the pack, while still paying so much more than other countries.

  • Naismith March 4, 2009, 9:05 pm

    I’d be interested in more information about this. Can you site some sources showing that businesses in these countries (which ones, in particular?) thrive because of socialized health care?

    You might look at this
    http://www.cfr.org/publication/13325/

    I’ve said repeatedly that I believe US health care needs reform. But I’m not sure if you realize that you don’t have to work for a “Big Company” to get health care. You have to work for a company that has TWO employees.

    That might be true in your state (applause if it is), but nationwide it isn’t so.

    Of firms with 3-9 employees, fewer than 50% of them offer coverage to their employees. Whereas 99% of large firms offer coverage.

    http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm0111898oth.cfm

    And of course, just because a firm offers to some employees does not mean they offer to every employee. Some do not offer insurance to part-timers, and intentionally keep people employed just below full-time in order to keep from offering health insurance.

    These people were DOING what they COULD, not just sitting at home collecting a check. They were working and trading and providing in return for what the needed.

    They were also letting their children die and refusing to let a child get glasses, if the people offering the needed help could not think of a creative way to coax them into accepting the help.

    If we are TOO ready to accept “charity” we tend to become more and more dependent upon others.

    Do you have data to back up that assertion? It might also be that if we readily accept charity we are more willing to help others, more sensitive to others’ needs.

    And I don’t consider health care to be a charity, but a human right.

    And I do think that the church teachings tend to do so as well.

    I also think the church teachings back up my thoughts on being kind to one another.

    But perhaps our definition of “self-reliant” differs.

    What is yours?

    “That it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.”

    And also that the Lord requires sacrifice, not prostration. We don’t have to sell our kidneys, allow our children to die, or go without sleep for days at a time in the name of self-sufficiency.

    You can’t say, “Well, we have $120,000 to hire an engineer! Would you like a job paying $120,000 per year?” You have to say, “We have $120,000 to hire an engineer and the corporate matching tax is $39,000 and the unemployment tax is $6,000 and the health insurance is $10,000. Would you like a job paying $65,000?”

    Do you really say that to people? I see those costs as well, because writing grants is entrepreneurial and I am well aware of what I pay for each employee. But the employee does not see the employer contribution to health insurance in their pay statement, and most have no clue (even in a room of health policy researchers).

  • Alison Moore Smith March 5, 2009, 3:17 pm

    Naismith, thanks for the link. I’ll look into it.

    That might be true in your state (applause if it is), but nationwide it isn’t so

    Of firms with 3-9 employees, fewer than 50% of them offer coverage to their employees. Whereas 99% of large firms offer coverage..

    Two different issues. Insurance companies WILL offer “group health plans” for companies with two or more employees. Whether they choose to or not is up to the owner. We, for example, did NOT always offer health coverage. In fact, our first few employees preferred it that way. They wanted more salary and less benefits. They valued the money more.

    If, as an employee, you value health coverage of this sort, then you should look for a company that provides it. If you value other things more, make your choices accordingly. It’s called freedom.

    My contention with the insurance industry is that it allows companies to form groups to share the risk load, but few OTHER entities can do so.

    And of course, just because a firm offers to some employees does not mean they offer to every employee. Some do not offer insurance to part-timers, and intentionally keep people employed just below full-time in order to keep from offering health insurance.

    I saw this once when I was a teenager. A woman worked at the Provo Burger King, part-time under her name and part-time under her maiden name. The owners didn’t want to pay for benefits. OTOH, she was begging for extra work and agreed to the deception.

    While I completely disagree with the dishonesty involved here, so what if companies “intentionally” keep people employed below full time? You say that as if it’s unethical. It’s called “managing costs.” Full-time employees are very expensive and the company has to cover the costs. If I can employ four people part-time for what one full-time employee costs–and they can do the same work–that might make the most sense for ALL involved.

    I think the key here is choice. (Democrats love being pro-choice, right?) If YOU want to work part-time, get a job at a company that offers part-time employment. If you want to work full-time, get a job where that is the option.

    They were also letting their children die and refusing to let a child get glasses, if the people offering the needed help could not think of a creative way to coax them into accepting the help.

    That’s what we call agency, Naismith.

    Do you have data to back up that assertion?

    Sure. Check the Parker book sited above. It’s full of data.

    And I don’t consider health care to be a charity, but a human right.

    Health care is a right? How much health care do we all have a “right” to? And who pays for it?

    Does everyone also have a “right” to a home? Food? Clothing? Transportation? A job?

    I also think the church teachings back up my thoughts on being kind to one another.

    Naismith, this is where the Obamites get into a pickle. Statistically, republicans (you know, the nasty folks who don’t want socialism) give vastly more to charities than those who supposedly “care.” Teaching self-reliance not only does not preclude kindness, but it also can be a very good source of it.

    “That it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.”

    I’d call the God-reliance, wouldn’t you? So how about moving beyond the dodge and tell us what you actually think all the conference talks about self-reliance are supposed to teach us?

    And also that the Lord requires sacrifice, not prostration. We don’t have to sell our kidneys, allow our children to die, or go without sleep for days at a time in the name of self-sufficiency.

    But I do have to pay my neighbor’s mortgage.

    But the employee does not see the employer contribution to health insurance in their pay statement, and most have no clue (even in a room of health policy researchers).

    That’s the point, Naismith. They don’t SEE them, but they are THERE. The fact that they are ignorant of the facts, doesn’t change the facts. Employees pay for their own insurance and other benefits and they pay their own taxes. Other people don’t.

  • Naismith March 5, 2009, 6:33 pm

    If you value other things more, make your choices accordingly. It’s called freedom.

    And Mitt Romney and I disagree with you. Because chances are that if someone chooses to go bare, without appropriate health insurance, they will end up in an emergency room at some point, and we all pay more for that care. In Massachussetts, since the reform that Gov. Romney introduced, people are fined for not having a health insurance plan that meets state specifications, just as people can be ticketed for not having car insurance in most states.

    Statistically, republicans (you know, the nasty folks who don’t want socialism)

    First of all, please don’t put those words into my mouth. I sleep with a Republican, and vote for them often. I would never call them “nasty.”

    And I don’t want socialism. What the Western Europe democracies have, which I greatly admire, is democracy. A different form than we have in the USA, but democracy nonetheless. It is a great way to live and is entirely compatible with faithful church membership (as we see in Pres. Uchtdorf).

    give vastly more to charities than those who supposedly “care.”

    In dollars, sure, because rich Republicans make more money than we do. I took a $5,000 cut in pay to work on my current project, because I believe in it and I think the world will be a better place because of my work. If my grants get funded, I still won’t make a single cent more, it just means that more people will be helped. Despite that, $10 of each paycheck goes to a clinic that offers free/reduced care to those in need.

    Perhaps there is a Republican social worker somewhere, but I’ve never met one. Most of them are Democrats. So lots of us give every day with our career choices.

    I can’t think of a better example than Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, who came from a wealthy Republican family, served as a VISTA volunteer there in his 20s, fell in love with the people of West Virginia and saw ways he could help, and stayed to raise his own family there and serve as governor and US senator, being a champion of children’s health care.

    Also, more detailed analysis shows that the charitable donations that conservatives make tend to be self-serving…to the church where their children go to camp and scouts, to the ballet or orchestra they like attending, to the high-profile charity event that allows them to meet other high rollers.

  • agardner March 5, 2009, 7:33 pm

    Perhaps there is a Republican social worker somewhere, but I’ve never met one. Most of them are Democrats. So lots of us give every day with our career choices

    Meet my husband, and I’m sure most of his co-workers (yes, he works for LDS Family Services, and is an LCSW). I get kind of annoyed at the stereotype that Republicans are heartless and selfish while Democrats are sensitive and self-less.

  • Naismith March 5, 2009, 7:58 pm

    So how about moving beyond the dodge and tell us what you actually think all the conference talks about self-reliance are supposed to teach us?

    I am very grateful for all the church teachings on self-reliance. They teach us to store food, cook from scratch, manage money wisely, sew clothes, etc. They are the reason that our family is debt-free.

    But here is the thing.

    Say there is a family called the Williams who live in the US. They have five children, and dad works fulltime and does freelance programming and mom does medical transcription from home. But dad’s company got bought out and no longer offers health insurance. They try their best, but that they can’t quite make it. They don’t want to enroll in SCHIP because they see it as a government handout. They certainly don’t want to be seen as one of those lazy people who are not willing to work their butts off. When one of their kids gets an ear infection, they call their pediatrician and are told that since they are more than 120 days late with payment, they can’t be seen. The physician is running a business, after all. So they give the child a blessing, and think about going to the ER. As the child’s screams escalate, they start yelling at each other, her blaming him for not being a good provider, him blaming her for not keeping the child away from sick kids. Sometime after midnight, the child finally stops screaming; it will be some years before they realize that the child is deaf in one ear.

    Let’s take that exact same family, and move them to France, where they are the Guillame family or Guillermo in Cuba or Willem in Germany. And now, because they have health care, they can take the baby in for treatment right away, and don’t get into a fight. Nobody accuses them of being lazy people who aren’t willing to work for what they get.

    It just seems a much saner way to live. And I don’t see anything incompatible with living the gospel in a country with that kind of system. It sounds much like 4 Nephi.

  • Alison Moore Smith March 5, 2009, 8:07 pm

    Posted By: NaismithAnd Mitt Romney and I disagree with you.

    Apples to oranges. You think Mitt doesn’t believe in choice? Or is it really that–given the current culture when “choice” actually means “choice until you feel like getting stuff–he has found a way to privatize universal health coverage?

    And wow. I’ll let Mitt know he can count on you for a donation in ’12.

    Because chances are that if someone chooses to go bare, without appropriate health insurance, they will end up in an emergency room at some point, and we all pay more for that care.

    Exactly. Because health care suddenly (when?) became a “right.”

    …please don’t put those words into my mouth.

    I don’t have to.

    I sleep with a Republican, and vote for them often. I would never call them “nasty.”

    Good call. I think calling one’s bed buddy “nasty” won’t bode well for one’s love life.

    It is a great way to live and is entirely compatible with faithful church membership (as we see in Pres. Uchtdorf).

    Naismith, eating dog poop is also “compatible with faithful church membership”–at least unless they change the WoW requirement behind my back. So is eating a bucket of tuna flavored pudding and washing it down with a gallon of strawberry Quick. (To steal a phrase from Weird Al.) But I still don’t think it’s the best idea on the planet.

    In dollars, sure, because rich Republicans make more money than we do.

    Oh, that’s right! It’s because those nasty selfish, money-grubbing Republicans compromise their values to make a buck! My bad!

    Oh, wait, and Obama and Biden are measly givers because…?

    Perhaps there is a Republican social worker somewhere, but I’ve never met one.

    Dear, you need to get out more.

  • partone March 5, 2009, 8:12 pm

    Naismith you didn’t answer that question up there but I think its really important. When you say health care is a right what do you mean? Who gets it and how much and how can we afford to give everyone whatever they want? That just sounds crazy to me. But why don’t you just go live in western Europe if its so great there?

    Good call. I think calling one’s bed buddy “nasty” won’t bode well for one’s love life.

    LOLOL

  • Alison Moore Smith March 5, 2009, 8:14 pm

    Posted By: partoneWho gets it and how much and how can we afford to give everyone whatever they want?

    That’s a republican problem. The dems have all taken such deep pay cuts for the sake of others, that they simply can’t be burdened further.

  • Naismith March 5, 2009, 8:46 pm

    Well, clearly if this has come to such name-calling, I am done with this discussion. I am a disciple of Jesus Christ, I follow the church’s teachings on self-sufficiency, and I am a Democrat. I can accept that we have differing views, but I respect yours. I don’t understand your name calling and criticism of being ridiculous, ludicrous, etc. If your way really is better, than why not be positive about what it brings you, not critical and put-down of others?

    NIH just came out with the Challenge Grant guidelines, and I am going to spend my time on something that matters.

  • Oregonian March 5, 2009, 11:58 pm

    give me a break. you come in here all the time and accuse people of supporting killing iraquis, of not being kind, of never sacrificing, of not spending their time on valuable things like writing grants. remember youre the one who doesnt want positive feedback. so you complain when you dont get it?

    no one called you names, they actually called themselves names. and no one said that democrats cant be disciples or be self sufficient. you just keep trying to throw church worthiness into the discussion. no one said you were ridiculous or ludicrous. i think youre the only one who brought up those words.

    at least some people around here have a little humor. i like to read your point of view which is usually the exact opposite of some, but it just seems that when someone makes a good point, you just ignore it and jump on something else.

    id also like to know why health care is a right. i cant make sense of how that is even possible. you said it and im the third person to ask you to explain it. lets see if you do now. tick tick tick

  • facethemusic March 6, 2009, 8:56 pm

    –Trying to catch up here– I’ve hardly had time to even check email all week– I had 179 emails!!!

    Anyhooo— in answer to Naismith’s question about “sources” for my assertion that socialized medicine is substandard– just ask anyone who’s LIVED in those countries and had to USE it. My Aunt (mother’s brother’s wife) is English– born and raised outside of London in a town called Kent.
    When she and my Uncle married, they lived there to be near her family– also because her parents gave them a substantial amount of money to start a business there. But only being a small, privately owned business, they couldn’t afford private insurance and were on the state program. They had such horrible problems trying to get healthcare for their kids, they closed their business there and reopened it in PA where they still live. When her mother and mother’s sister began having serious health problems, had to wait months to see a doctor, and couldn’t recieve medications and treatments they needed because the state wouldn’t cover it, they brought both of them here where they could be seen within a couple DAYS and DID get the medications they needed.

    My father’s family is all from Canada — SAME problems.

    Our former Bishop’s wife, and my current VT is from Germany. SAME problems.

    And just this afternoon, I heard two women call into a local talk show –one from England and one from Sweden– they said the SAME thing. The woman from Sweden was talking about how the rich there spend “ungodly” amounts of money on private care because the “free government care” is so bad.

    One of my distant cousins, who I’ve never actually met in person but connected with for genealogy reasons, lives in Ottawa. Just a few weeks ago he was telling me about his upcoming treatment for kidney stones and how it’s only been in the last 10 years or so that they had any of the hospitals there had technology for busting up kidney stones. It’s the capitol city for heaven’s sake and it didn’t have the machine– I think he said there were 4 major hospitals? With all the hub-bub about “universal healthcare” here, and my concerns about it, I asked about care there, and he sent a link from when the city finally got the machines to treat his stones.
    AHA!! It was still in my browser history!!!!! Read this— it was written by one of the doctors at an Ottawa hospital –it talks about the lack of technology and lack of timely care — and not just for kidney stones. πŸ™‚

  • Alison Moore Smith March 8, 2009, 12:10 pm

    Naismith, that’s what we call “The Republican Attack Machine.” In a nutshell, that’s when Democrats accuse Republicans of saying things they didn’t say or, more often, prophesying what they are sure the will say in the future, and somehow it becomes real. (Of course, it’s usually used as a way for dems to attack other dems without taking responsibility for what is said, but I see it has other purposes as well.)

    I didn’t call you any names and I didn’t say you were ridiculous or ludicrous (although I certainly reserve the right to if I think you are). Some ideas actually are ridiculous and/or ludicrous–and a heap of them come from the left side of the aisle. (You know, like the idea that spending money we don’t have on things we don’t need is the way to perk up the economy.) Saying so doesn’t make it so.

    Fabricating behavior and using it as an excuse to drop out of a discussion is disingenuous. You are free to leave at any time, but at least be a (wo)man about it.

    Posted By: NaismithIf your way really is better, than why not be positive about what it brings you, not critical and put-down of others?

    Well, there’s this little issue about Obama screwing over my kids and grandkids. Sorry, but I don’t marvel over the yummy chocolate when someone delivers dog poop brownies to the party.

  • Alison Moore Smith March 8, 2009, 12:14 pm

    Tracy, here’s the key term in that article:

    I would advise physicians dealing with the Ontario government on funding for new programs to be prepared for a long battle.

    If I’m dealing with the Obama/Pelosi delegation, I’ll get priority treatment if I want an abortion, tattoo removal, drug rehab, nicotine patches, medicinal weed, clean needles, or birth control (if I’m a minor). Not so sure about other stuff.

  • Alison Moore Smith March 12, 2009, 9:59 am

    Another $480 billion down the tubes. With 8,000 earmarks. Thank you, Obama!

  • davidson March 12, 2009, 11:33 am

    Now, I want to say this carefully.

    Alison, have you ever sincerely considered running for a public office? You follow the political issues so closely and seem to have so much knowledge about them, which I admire. You definitely have the spunk to serve in that capacity. Just wonderin’.

    I’ve wondered the same thing about some of the rest of you. I’m proud of your political prowess. Although I feel like a boy among the men.
    (Girl among the women?)

  • Alison Moore Smith March 12, 2009, 3:07 pm

    Hah! No. Totally not interested. But thanks. I think.

    I was voted “most likely to run for office” at…hmmm…my 10th?…high school reunion. Actually I think I got 2nd place. That was a switch, because in my graduating class I was voted “most likely to get married first.” (Sam was voted “most likely to succeed.” I have nothing to say about that match except that I was NOT remotely close to the first to get married.)

    Anyway, in the current climate at least I couldn’t get anywhere in politics. I am so not a player. I have a friend who is married to a state senator. A couple of years ago we both spoke at the same convention in the Salt Palace in Salt Lake. She said something to the effect of, “Never make enemies, because you don’t know whose help you will need in the future.” I just can’t play that game. won’t shut up about an issue just to “make nice” with the opposition. The result is that on a given issue, people either REALLY like what I say or REALLY hate it. Then on another issue, those who liked my first issue, HATE my position on the second. Etc. And speaking out against someone (who is an ally on another issue) on principle isn’t taken very well. It’s not the way to win the popular vote.

  • davidson March 12, 2009, 5:11 pm

    At every high school reunion, we get the prize for having the most kids, which is usually a box of condoms. πŸ™ Classy, huh? And I was voted most likely to succeed, and the direction my life has taken just isn’t what my classmates look at as “highly successful.” Sigh.

    Still, you have the integrity and knowledge a politician really needs, and I’d vote for you. πŸ™‚

  • agardner March 12, 2009, 5:49 pm

    Davidson, you have definitely succeeded by raising all those kids!

    I was voted nothing, which is pretty much what I’ve achieved. πŸ™‚ So my classmates were spot-on.

  • facethemusic March 12, 2009, 6:00 pm

    At every high school reunion, we get the prize for having the most kids, which is usually a box of condoms. Classy, huh?

    How incredibly tacky– and insulting!! I’d say something about that Davidson.

  • davidson March 12, 2009, 6:15 pm

    Well, we just try to not be there for the awards. (Speaking with our absence, I guess.) Don’t want to burn any bridges behind us.

  • davidson March 12, 2009, 6:18 pm

    And ANGIE! You are NOT a nothing! We all know here how substantial you are! And your kids are lucky to have you for a mom.

  • Tinkerbell March 12, 2009, 7:55 pm

    Ooh, that is tacky.

  • agardner March 12, 2009, 9:07 pm

    Serena, I know, I was just kidding. Really, I was just goading you to come tell me how wonderful I am, and you did! πŸ™‚

    I think I was 1st runner-up for prettiest eyes. Does that count for anything? Not that they really gave a first runner-up, I just know when we voted me and the other girl were the only ones on the list. Ha ha. You could look at that as 1st runner up or last place. I’ll choose first runner up!

  • Ray March 13, 2009, 6:40 am

    you have the integrity and knowledge a politician really needs

    Fwiw, I have a friend who has been a very successful state-level lobbyist for over 30 years. I worked with him on an educational initiative a few years ago. I really enjoyed it and asked him once if he thought I might be good at it. His response was interesting:

    “You are very good at this, but you are too honest to do it for a living.”

  • davidson March 13, 2009, 9:22 am

    But isn’t that what we NEED? Whether or not it’s been done before is beside the point. I thought the article in the February Ensign about WHY Joseph Smith ran for President of the United States was pretty-eye opening. He felt he had a DUTY to do it. No one else was representing or defending the truth.

  • Tinkerbell March 13, 2009, 9:36 am

    I thought the choice of that Joseph Smith article was interesting, too. I took it as a call to action to do what I can do defend liberty and “the innocent”.

  • facethemusic March 13, 2009, 5:13 pm

    Fox News has been reporting for weeks that 40% of the earmarks are from Republicans

  • facethemusic March 14, 2009, 1:08 pm

    in a stunning reversal from his incessant droning on about economic “catastrophe” (hint: while trying to garner support to spend us into a black hole)–he said WE NEED TO FOCUS ON THE FAT THAT THE BASIC FUNDAMENTALS IN OUR ECONOMY ARE STRONG

    Funny how NOW he’s saying the SAME THING he criticized McCain for saying.
    Obama ALSO said yesterday, A smidgen of good news and suddenly everything is doing great. A little bit of bad news and ooohh , we ?re down on the dumps…..I don ?t think things are ever as good as they say, or ever as bad as they say, ? Obama added. Things two years ago were not as good as we thought because there were a lot of underlying weaknesses in the economy. They ?re not as bad as we think they are now. ?

    Hello???? HE’s the one who’s been painting the doom and gloom picture. Everytime he opened his mouth to talk about how horrible everything is, the stock market IMMEDIATELY responded with a drop. I think he FINALLY caught on— “Gee whiz, if I tell everyone it’s the end of the world, then the market REACTS like it’s the end of the world. So maybe I should stop speaking in such negative terms.”

    Then he turns around and says “A little bit of bad news and ooooh, we’re down ont he dumps…” “I don’t think things are ever as bad as they say” and “the basic fundamentals in our economy are strong” and WALA— the markets go UP!!!!

    I guess he’s finally catching on.
    -50 points for talking us into the ground
    +10 for learning his lesson

    Let’s hope he keeps learning…

  • Alison Moore Smith March 20, 2009, 10:10 am

    Obama is proposing that the tax deduction for charitable contributions be removed.

  • Alison Moore Smith March 20, 2009, 10:12 am

    BTW, I will be calling Timothy Geithner “TurboTim” from now on. Just so you know.

  • jennycherie March 20, 2009, 11:00 am

    Posted By: Alison Moore Smiththe tax deduction for charitable contributions be removed.

    Isn’t it nice that that won’t affect him at all?

  • Tinkerbell March 20, 2009, 11:23 am

    Obama just says whatever is expedient for getting what he wants done. One day I saw a headline that said something like, “Obama says economic crisis worst catastrophe ever”. The very next day there was a headline about how he didn’t think the economy was that big of a deal. To be honest, I just don’t listen to a word he says anymore (did I ever?) Everything is being carefully orchestrated to created outrage to pull the wool over our eyes while he “changes” our nation into a socialist state. It’s too bad so many are blinded to what is going on.

  • Tinkerbell March 20, 2009, 11:24 am

    Alison, it doesn’t matter if the charitable contribution deduction is limited all lots of non-profits go out of business because of it. The government will save you! That’s the plan. The government needs to solve all our problems – we are too stupid to do it ourselves.

  • Alison Moore Smith March 20, 2009, 11:57 am

    Isn’t it nice that that won’t affect him at all?

    :rolling:

    Tink, my thoughts exactly. If no one gives to charity, his case for government assistance is stronger.

  • Alison Moore Smith April 30, 2009, 10:55 am

    I’m so mad I could spit.

    As I drove home, I listened to Obama in a press conference.

    What the crap is the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES doing making internal policy announcements for CHRYSLER????

    I’m just stunned. Is this what we elected him for? To take over the banks, industry, and health care in the US? Do we want BARNEY FRANK to run the auto industry????

    He opined about how wonderful it was that the “stakeholders” were so willing to “sacrifice” to keep Chrysler alive. Hello? The “stakeholders” are mostly the American TAXPAYERS. We didn’t “sacrifice” for Chrysler. GENERATIONAL THEFT saved Chrysler.

    Now that the stolen money hasn’t solved their problems, they are “using the nation’s bankruptcy laws” to prop them up. Read that, giving the shaft to those to whom they are indebted. He then made this blazing statement of idiocy, “Bankruptcy isn’t a sign of weakness.”

    No. It’s a sign of fiscal responsibility and great business practices.

  • jennycherie April 30, 2009, 3:43 pm

    I am absolutely amazed that he is blaming the banks who loaned money to Chrysler! It’s all their fault for wanting their money back! Unbelievable!

  • nanacarol April 30, 2009, 4:50 pm

    And isn’t he bailing out the bank?!? My gosh, I see it all now, he will be taking over everything. I have really tried to give him a chance but I can’t stand him! I have a odd sinking in my stomache knowing what is yet to come.
    Alison, I was reading back on the things that have been said in this thread and I think davidson had a good point. You know the issues make a run of something at least. We need good people right now. Half of the tea party events was to let our goverment know we aren’t happy. Now we have to raise up and be counted. We need to let our voices be heard.
    Next question, how is the President doing all he is doing. Where is he getting his support? When he was speaking this morning I just couldn’t help but think he is a puppet with his strings being pulled. It scares me that he is getting so involved in areas he has no business being in!!! How and can we stop him?

  • Oregonian April 30, 2009, 7:11 pm

    did you hear biden today and then the press secretary lying his pants off about it?

  • heather April 30, 2009, 7:41 pm

    The biden bit was quite a winner today wasn’t it??? Every time I listened to the radio news commentators tell the story of both biden and press secretary, even they couldn’t tell the story without a bit of sarcasm in their voice! This office must think we’re really that stupid!!!

  • facethemusic April 30, 2009, 9:10 pm

    Sorros and the media. It’s all the support he really needs.

  • Alison Moore Smith May 1, 2009, 6:28 pm

    Biden’s statement: I am avoiding all enclosed spaces and have also warned my family to do so and not to take a subway or plane.

    Gibbs’s translation: The VP said that if you are exhibiting flu symptoms you should wash your hands.

  • Alison Moore Smith May 1, 2009, 6:31 pm

    Someone explain this to me. Chrysler is too big to fail. If they go bankrupt, we face impending doom, armageddon, the collapse of the economy, the end of the world as we know it.

    A few weeks later–after a gazillion of our hard-earned money is stolen in the name of saving the planet–Chrysler goes bankrupt. We lose jobs.Today they said 31 out of 61 DEALERSHIPS would close.

    So, according to Mr. Obama, you had better head for the bunker now. Cling to your guns and your religion. It’s all we have left.

  • facethemusic May 2, 2009, 7:32 am

    And what REALLY irks me is that no one outside of FOX is actually calling anyone on any of this nonsense.

  • facethemusic May 18, 2009, 10:06 pm
  • Alison Moore Smith May 18, 2009, 10:53 pm

    I’m appalled that Notre Dame would honor this man.

  • jennycherie May 19, 2009, 2:24 am

    This really is unbelievable. Here is a blog on the same topic:

    http://theblacksphere.blogspot.com/2009/05/notre-dang-angels-and-demons.html

  • facethemusic May 19, 2009, 8:18 am

    Jenn, since you teach at a Catholic college, have you heard any discussion about this? Have the students and/or teachers talked about how they feel about Obama being given an honorary degree?

    My beef with the whole thing isn’t that he was asked to speak there–I think it’s only natural for a college/university to want to have the President of the United States speak at their commencement ceremonies and I don’t have a problem with that. But, there’s a difference between THAT and “honoring” him with a degree. A commencement speech should be about hard work, perseverence, dedication to reaching a goal, desire for learning and growing, etc, etc. But his speech was mostly a well arranged, political version of Rodney King’s “can’t we all just get along” wad of baloney.

    And even beyond all that– even IF some one were to present a legitimate/plausible/understandable argument for WHY he should be given such an honor, how completely INSANE is it, that at the VERY SAME TIME they’re honoring HIM, who’s political agenda is completely OPPOSITE of what they teach and claim to believe, they’re ARRESTING one of their own priests for objecting?

  • jennycherie May 19, 2009, 2:30 pm

    Posted By: facethemusicJenn, since you teach at a Catholic college, have you heard any discussion about this? Have the students and/or teachers talked about how they feel about Obama being given an honorary degree?

    You know, I heard vague grumbles about Notre Dame, but not too much about that. The really big, loud discussions were over the election. It *seems* like the students who are very church-oriented (and involved in Campus Ministry and going on frequent mission trips) are 100% pro-life and anti-abortion except in very rare circumstances. The students who are mostly into the Catholic “culture” more than the doctrine, seem to be the ones who use the Obama-is-more-pro-life-because-of-his-policies argument.

    I can’t for the life of me understand Notre Dame ALLOWING the arrest of one of their priests who is upholding CATHOLIC beliefs. Unbelievable.

  • nanacarol May 20, 2009, 9:29 am

    Why would such a thing as Abortion have anything to do with a graduation speech anyway?????? Why not encourage this young people to do positive things. His speech just left me so disgusted!!!! I just have to say that I am reading a book by Nancy Reagen she wrote right after they left the White House. I loved Pres. Reagen and his humility. Obama has none what so ever. He thinks he has the whole picture figured out!!.

  • facethemusic May 20, 2009, 1:27 pm

    Nana, I’m pretty sure the reason he brought it up (the main one anyway) is because it’s his “anything goes” position on the issue that was the fundamental concern fueling the objection to him being there and/or getting the honorary degree. He felt like this was an “opportunity” for him to assuage the concerned and do his “let’s all just get along” monologue.
    I think however, that the very fact that he went on and on about it and tried to make his position seem “understandable/open-minded/equally valid to the opposing view” etc, only served to further anger those who objected to him being there in the first place.
    The objection is not only his pro-abortion stand, but the “no-restrictions whatsoever” belief that goes along with it.
    So for him to use the occasion as an opportunity to give a monologue about his personal views and why everyone who feels the opposite should accept his position as ‘equally valid’ only served to prove the point of those who feel differently. Had he not said a WORD about abortion, not tried to make it sound like anyone who objected to his being there was just intolerant, irrationally zealous, etc, and JUST stuck to the topics of education, continued learning, using knowledge to improve the world, reaching and attaining goals, etc– then his speech might have made those protesting outside at least APPEAR to protesting for no reason. But instead, he tried to make himself sound tolerant, accepting and open to other views while priests were being arrested right outside the doors. (I guess no one was tolerant or accepting of THEIR views)

  • Tinkerbell May 20, 2009, 7:54 pm

    I agree with nanacarol. It seemed arrogant of him to make the graduation speech on abortion. He should have just stuck to a speech encouraging the graduates to go out and make the world a better place or something.

  • Alison Moore Smith June 7, 2009, 11:18 am

    Yet another czar. The Pay Czar. I think we should have left czars in Russia. Oh, wait…

  • Alison Moore Smith June 7, 2009, 11:19 am

    And, yes, when the president goes on date night, I think he should pay for it himself. Just like real Americans who are supposed to “sacrifice” for the good of the country.

  • Alison Moore Smith June 28, 2009, 12:56 am
  • zooplace June 28, 2009, 10:24 am

    That was hilarious…and scary. I agree Alison.

  • facethemusic June 29, 2009, 10:28 am

    Check it out! The Supreme Court ruled that Sotomayor’s ridiculous ruling against the firefighters was unconstitutional!!!
    So the woman that Obama chose to be the newest Supreme Court justice just got her butt kicked by the Supreme Court and decided that her ruling was WRONG! Let’s hope that this wipes out any chance of her being appointed. She’s a far left liberal activist judge who has NO BUSINESS on the Supreme Court.

  • Alison Moore Smith June 29, 2009, 1:27 pm

    I am SO glad to hear that! Haven’t checked any news today.

    Honestly, I don’t know what I think about her possible appointment, since she’s not as bad as she COULD be given the representation in DC. But I do think her ruling was appalling. And her statement that a Latina will make a better decision most of the time was blatantly racist. And I DID read the whole speech. There is not “context” that makes her statement acceptable.

  • Alison Moore Smith June 29, 2009, 4:49 pm

    I wanted to post about one thing I agree with Obama on. He has been outspoken about fatherhood. Not in some mimby mamby way, but quite firmly about responsibility. He’s gone so far as to address his own father’s utter failure at being a father and to address the black community in general for the severe problems they have with this issue.

    I appreciate and respect that.

  • facethemusic June 29, 2009, 5:00 pm

    That’s good to know. I don’t recall hearing him speak about that. What particular speech or interview was that?

  • Alison Moore Smith June 29, 2009, 5:18 pm

    I can’t recall all the sources, but I read an article around Father’s Day in the newspaper that included a number of strong quotes from him.

  • Tinkerbell June 29, 2009, 6:06 pm

    He has made similar speeches on the past few Father’s Days. They are good ones.

  • facethemusic June 29, 2009, 6:12 pm

    Well, there’s a big brownie point for him.

  • Alison Moore Smith July 22, 2009, 12:21 am

    Obama repeatedly states that Obamacare will “allow” you to keep coverage you like. But his own plan (page 16, I think?) says that if you change coverage or lose your job, you must go to the federal program.

    Is he a liar or is he stupid?

  • Deanna July 22, 2009, 11:09 pm

    Oh the tangled web we weave…

    Photobucket

  • ksjarvis August 3, 2009, 7:40 am

    Ok, that is so scary. My mouth is still hanging open.

  • Tinkerbell August 3, 2009, 4:05 pm

    Even without the weird computer thing, I still don’t like the Clunkers program. I don’t like that my tax dollars are being used to help other people buy brand new cars.

  • Alison Moore Smith August 3, 2009, 11:33 pm

    Not just that, but if you take in a perfectly good, running car (aka “clunker”), the law requires the dealer to do a 14-step, strip down to make the car unusable.

    Stimulus? I call it extreme waste and the use of other’s resources to pay off the unions.

    Even scarier is that people can hear what is actually on the cars.gov site and then call concern about it “conspiracy theory.” Anyone who isn’t up in arms and screaming about this is an absolute idiot.

  • jennycherie August 3, 2009, 11:56 pm

    Posted By: Alison Moore SmithStimulus? I call it extreme waste and the use of other’s resources to pay off the unions.

    It reminds me of “Brave New World” where everything is designed to increase consumption, and the people are conditioned to throw things away quickly to buy new: “ending is better than mending” :shocked:

  • Tinkerbell August 4, 2009, 8:40 am

    It reminds me of “Brave New World” where everything is designed to increase consumption, and the people are conditioned to throw things away quickly to buy new: “ending is better than mending”

    Isn’t that basically where we are at in America? Everything is disposable, and “the economy” runs everything.

  • Alison Moore Smith August 5, 2009, 2:14 pm

    Tink, I am just stinking, hopping mad.

    I get the insipid emails from Obama and his wife. These people are LIARS. This is disgusting beyond belief.

    Let’s talk about truth. Obama is a community organizer. His EXPERTISE is in creating chaos, in overwhelming systems in order to further his agenda. It took the man SIX MONTHS to CHOOSE A DOG! But he’ll tell you we have to take over the entire US health care system in three weeks? It’s an utter lie.

    Who protested AIG? It was SCIU! For crying out loud.

    And now, real citizens, you and me, people sick of the lying, sick of the highjacking of our great country, sick of the stealing of our money–we FINALLY stand up and get mad and speak out. And HE and his lying cronies say we are extremists who are being organized by Republican senators? For crap’s sake–I want both of my stupid (Republican, Mormon) senators run out on a rail!

    Today the democrats actually described us a “mob.” And have you heard the latest democrat party/media line? We are “too well-dressed” and “gangs from Brooks Brothers.” I’ve never set foot in Brooks Brothers and why would it matter if I did. That’s what intelligent people call AD HOMINEM. Hello?

  • Tinkerbell August 5, 2009, 3:05 pm

    It’s all just an attempt to discredit the opposition. And it’s disgusting.

  • Tinkerbell August 5, 2009, 3:07 pm

    And have you heard the latest democrat party/media line? We are “too well-dressed” and “gangs from Brooks Brothers.” I’ve never set foot in Brooks Brothers and why would it matter if I did.

    For the tea parties, the line was that they were all white trash, hick protesters. They will find any way they can to discredit the people. It’s not just disgusting. It is SCARY.

  • Alison Moore Smith August 6, 2009, 11:12 am

    Tink, all I could think of yesterday hearing the dishonest descriptions of those of us who have protested (first white trash hicks, next Brooks Brothers mobs–really?) was the great and spacious building. No reason. No logic. No discussion. Just finger pointing and name calling.

    The scariest thing of all to me is that there seems to be a huge contingency of Americans who actually think ad hominem scores debate points. It’s as if I’m playing football and the other team gets points if they call me a sissy.

    Like I said, Obama’s email yesterday (?) was, get this, asking people to show up at townhall meetings to support his (etherial, non-existent) health care reform plan. And guess who one of the biggest groups working with him to get this astroturfing done? The AFLCIO!

    So, let’s see. When citizens get ticked off and come together to protest AGAINST Obama, they are “angry mobs.” But when the president sends out requests to 13 million Americans and unions and lobbyist groups ban together to BLOCK the citizens from protesting it’s…it’s…umm…”community organizing”?

    And Tink, yea, gotta love the snitch site. If you know of people who are saying bad stuff about Obama, you need to report them. Sounds eerily like…oh, I don’t know…Hitler.

  • Tinkerbell August 6, 2009, 1:40 pm

    The hypocrisy is amazing. It would be amusing if it wasn’t so scary.

  • Tinkerbell August 6, 2009, 2:20 pm

    Contrast Obama’s approach to being protested against to GWB‘s:

    I get protested all the time. The great thing about the country is it’s a free — it’s a place that’s so free that people can protest. They can protest the president and did.

    But Obama wants citizens to tattle on each other.

  • euclid August 6, 2009, 3:50 pm

    well, he may have said he didn’t mind being heckled, but his administration’s actions said differently:

    …Their experience is hardly unique.

    In the months before the 2004 election, dozens of people across the nation were banished from or arrested at Bush political rallies, some for heckling the president, others simply for holding signs or wearing clothing that expressed opposition to the war and administration policies.

    Similar things have happened at official, taxpayer-funded, presidential visits, before and after the election. Some targeted by security have been escorted from events, while others have been arrested and charged with misdemeanors that were later dropped by local prosecutors.

    Now, in federal courthouses from Charleston, W.Va., to Denver, federal officials and state and local authorities are being forced to defend themselves against lawsuits challenging the arrests and security policies.

    While the circumstances differ, the cases share the same fundamental themes. Generally, they accuse federal officials of developing security measures to identify, segregate, deny entry or expel dissenters….

    full article is here: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-07-23-bush-protesters_x.htm

  • Alison Moore Smith August 6, 2009, 5:55 pm

    Got another email from Obama today.

    Members of Congress have been home for just a few days, and they’re already facing increased pressure from insurance companies, special interests, and partisan attack organizations that are spending millions to block health insurance reform.

    I want to know where my piece of the pie is!

  • Tinkerbell August 7, 2009, 11:51 am

    euclid, I shouldn’t have used GWB as a contrast. GWB was bad. Obama is worse. What I would really love is a President who realizes he works for us the people – the ones who are at townhall meetings complaining. There’s so much “us vs. them” in Washington. They forget that they are supposed to be one of us.

  • kiar August 8, 2009, 12:14 am

    They have figured out here in California that the counties that voted “Obama” are recieving millions of dollars in aid, and the counties that really need it, that just so happen to be Republican leaning, are not getting one red cent. The whole situation is sickening, and needs to be addressed. Towns and counties that need help are being turned down, and people are losing thier jobs, and those of us lucky enough to keep our jobs (my DH) have been warned by thier superiors that they need to find a new place (preferably Obama friendly) by this time next year to work, or they may be laid off then. Lovely!
    What he is doing is so blatant, I can’t believe that people don’t see it. We are just going to work really hard this year to get out of debt, and then when our 1 year lease is up (ironic that it will be this time next year, when his job is on the chopping block) we may just have to disappear off the grid, (lol) or go to another state. It is so screwed up, I don’t even know what to think, I just want to hide my family away from the craziness that is about to hit.

  • Tinkerbell August 8, 2009, 7:44 am

    Wow, kiar. I think that is one of the scary things about the government taking over so many things and giving “aid” to so many things. They can control you. They can buy people and their votes. I think this is particularly scary with regard to education. Obama’s education plan is to give more money to schools who meet his goals. What are those goals? What agenda will they have behind them? If your school doesn’t offer “diversity” training, will he pull the plug on your funding. I view this as just another way for government to get more control.

  • Tinkerbell August 8, 2009, 12:31 pm

    Aha, more hypocrisy. After accusing protesters of being organized and sponsored by big business/insurance companies, it turns out that big drug companies are backing Obama’s plan – with lots of money.

    Even before the announcement, according to several individuals, the White House sought help from PhRMA in passing legislation.

    By the White House tally, overall advertising so far by PhRMA and other supporters of the bill has swamped efforts by opponents. Republican strategists concede it would be extremely difficult to match an effort of the size PhRMA is planning.

    While the White House and Democrats benefit from PhRMA’s help, they seem reluctant to discuss it openly.

    And get this . . .

    More recently, Reid omitted the drugmakers from a list of outside interests trying to help pass legislation.

    That appears to be a blatant lie considering how much PhRMA has already spent and is planning to spend. Why do we allow politicians to LIE to us?

  • Tinkerbell August 8, 2009, 12:34 pm

    I have another question. The reasons we want health care reform are 1. to reduce costs and 2. to expand coverage so everyone can have healthcare. Well, with these proposed bills, it is expected that 1. costs will go up (explanation: it costs more to cover everyone. We need to all sacrifice and pitch in) and 2. care will be rationed (explanation: available healthcare is limited. It has to be rationed to those who need it most).

    So, with that being the case, it doesn’t appear that 1. costs will be reduced or 2. everyone will have healthcare.

    Why are we doing this again?

  • Alison Moore Smith August 8, 2009, 3:59 pm

    Power.

    The nationalized health care system in the UK–the itty bitty UK!!!!–is the THIRD LARGEST EMPLOYER IN THE WORLD! (I want Daniel Hannan to move to Utah and run for office.)

    Here’s the thing: when the US health care system becomes the largest employer in the WORLD, what does that do to your voting block? It means those supporting the government grab hold them hostage. It is JUST like government schools–only exponentially worse. “Don’t vote for vouchers (or anything else that is GOOD for kids, but BAD for unions and crappy schools), because you’ll put Auntie Bea, our favorite kindergarten teacher, out of work!”

    Can you imagine what happens when most of the people you know become GOVERNMENT workers and everyone thinks (because apparently Americans are idiots) they are getting free health care?

  • Tinkerbell August 8, 2009, 4:29 pm

    I think this idea that health care is “free” has been coming for a while. It was set up with managed care in the first place. People seem to have this idea that they pay their premium and that’s it – everything after that is “free”. And so many people just don’t pay doctor/hospital bills anymore. This is the first time I have had a baby that both the doctor and hospital wanted to be paid my co-pay upfront – even the hospital! I think it is because they are used to not getting paid. It just seems that people have this idea that they don’t have to pay for health care.

  • Alison Moore Smith August 9, 2009, 9:59 am

    Exactly. Do you remember Naismith’s comment about health care being a “right”? I see the same thing all the time. Some women on the news last week was screaming that “basic health care is a human right!” Setting aside the obvious question of what constitutes “basic” let’s focus on the fact that this woman appears to have no knowledge of what a right is or where it comes from.

    Wondering when Americans will actually read the Constitution and have a modestly working knowledge of US history.

  • Tinkerbell August 10, 2009, 1:47 pm

    Ah, more hypocrisy. About the town hall health care protesters, Pelosi said:

    For Pelosi and Hoyer, they charged that an “ugly campaign” is afoot to misrepresent the legislation, “disrupt” the public meetings and prevent members of Congress from “conducting a civil dialogue” on the topic.

    “Let the facts be heard,” they wrote. “These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views — but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American. Drowning out the facts is how we failed at this task for decades.”

    Of course, people who agree with her are never unpatriotic, particularly anti-war protesters a few years ago:

    Pelosi, who led efforts to withdraw from Iraq before troops had finished the job, tolerated anti-war hecklers on several occasions.

    “It’s always exciting,” she said of protesters who interrupted a meeting in January 2006, according to an account in the San Francisco Chronicle. “This is democracy in action. I’m energized by it, frankly.”

    At an event in June 2007, she told anti-war protesters “just go for it, I respect your enthusiasm,” according to another account.

  • Tinkerbell August 10, 2009, 1:48 pm

    People of CA, why do you put up with this woman?

  • Tinkerbell August 10, 2009, 2:01 pm

    BTW, if you oppose Obamacare, you are also a racist. Well, at least an “unscientific estimate” of 45-65% of you are. This seems to be the easiest attack on the opposition. If you oppose out-of-control government spending that will lead to increased taxes, you are racist. If you oppose Obama himself, you are racist. It is a way to instantly put people on the defense and distract from the real issues. Give me a break. The scary thing is that there are people who really buy this crap.

  • kiar August 10, 2009, 8:30 pm

    Want some irony? A black gentleman was attacked and called a “n-word” and kicked repeatedly by white people for opposing the healthcare bill. He was then called by other blacks a sell out and dishonourable to his race. A black officer that was involved with the whole “Gates” issue was called a sellout by other blacks because he supported his fellow (white) officer that arrested the professor.

    Blarg, this whole issue id ridiculous!

  • Tinkerbell August 10, 2009, 9:11 pm

    Ha ha. More hypocrisy. Check out this link if you are interested. Be sure to look at the original link where they really did use “drown out”. They have since changed it to “counter”. Guess they were made aware of their hypocrisy.

  • Alison Moore Smith August 11, 2009, 5:31 pm

    You can sign a letter demanding that Obama and congress stop spending money.

  • Alison Moore Smith August 13, 2009, 10:35 am

    Amazing, isn’t it. Yes, when I say it’s a socialist agenda and that Obama is a Marxist, it’s just because I’ll get in trouble if I all him the “n” word–that word that only blacks can use now.

    I have heard ONE democrat stand up publicly and decry this kind of democratic garbage. Where are the rest?

  • mormonmom August 16, 2009, 9:41 am

    It is DEFINITELY politically motivated!

    I discovered a new web site today, “Color of Change”. haha…Sorry… Anyway, they have begun a campaign against Glenn Beck for saying the Obama is a racist. That’s what happens when the shoe is on the other foot.

  • Tinkerbell August 16, 2009, 11:26 am

    I think they are just using the race card out of desperation. But, it’s getting old.

  • jennycherie August 18, 2009, 5:42 am

    I feel like our president is demonizing our medical professionals in an effort to rush through his health care reform. What is the rush? And who is writing his speeches without checking the facts? Either his speech writer and aids are extremely incompetent or this is being done on purpose.

  • ksjarvis August 18, 2009, 7:44 am

    I don’t think the statements made by the President were mistakes at all. He wants to push through this reform by any means necessary. It is so disheartening. Each day during Obama’s administration, I have become more and more concerned with where our country is heading. My husband and I have written letter after letter to our congressmen, but have continually felt that they aren’t really listening to voice of the people. What happens to a democratic country when the voice of the poeple is scoffed at and ignored?

  • Alison Moore Smith August 19, 2009, 2:17 pm

    Today Obama came out with ANOTHER web site “Setting the Record Straight” to “expose” the people who are funding the “frightened crowds” flooding town halls.

    This man is unbelievable.

    We aren’t funded. We aren’t stupid. We aren’t misinformed. We know a liar when we see one. And we’re not “frightened” we are fed up.

    How many millions did THIS web site cost us?

  • ksjarvis August 20, 2009, 6:42 am

    Last night on Fox News they ran a story about John Mackey the CEO of Whole Foods. His comments on Obamacare were published in the Wall Street Journal a couple of days ago. He publicly stated that the proposed bill would not work for our country and would lead to futher national debt. He then provided a few ideas of his own for health care reform, which I thought were pretty good.

    Because of his public stance, a huge number of people have now decided to boycott Whole Foods. There is a Facebook group that now numbers almost 20,000 people that support the boycott. Which when you think about it is really kind of funny becuase they are using a Capitalistic form of protest (the boycott) to show support for a Socialistic form of healthcare. Ha! And honestly who do they think that they will be hurting by this boycott? Certainly not John Mackey. For the last few years, he has actually only taken a salary of only $1 per year and instead donated the rest of his salary to different charities. Instead this boycott will hurt some the 50,000 people his company employs. And even in this economy, he created over 8,000 new jobs last year.

    The whole thing just made me want to join an anti-boycott group and purposefully go shop there. In fact, I think I might today!

  • Alison Moore Smith August 20, 2009, 1:35 pm

    If you don’t find or create an anti-boycott group, I will!

    Let’s guess who’s behind this. Acorn? SCIU? Community organizing at it’s finest.

  • ksjarvis August 21, 2009, 6:23 am

    Someone already started one. I just joined!

  • mormonmom August 24, 2009, 9:58 pm

    I was just reading different sites today, and I went to LDS Media Talk Blog. From there I went to the blog of Larry Richman, Director of the Church Publications and Media Project Office: http://richmanramblings.blogspot.com/. That’s when I got really ticked off.

    Quoted from WhiteHouse.gov, “There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can ?t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we ?re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.”

    So now we’re supposed to tattle on our friends and family who don’t agree with the White House! What the crud?! What then?!? :devil:

    Senator Cornyn of Texas wrote a letter to the White House that is great! In turn, I wrote a letter to my senator asking him to write the White House about their own “fishy” tactics. Then, I sent it to friends and family, urging them to do the same. Now, I would like to urge you all to do the same. Please read the article above and in it you will find the link to Senator Cornyn’s letter. From that point, you should be fired up enough to shoot a letter or two of your own off!

    While I was at it, I went to the following web site and shot off another email to my representatives and senators: American Family Assoc.. I love this site! If the Reagan audio here doesn’t help fuel your fire, I don’t know what would.

  • Alison Moore Smith August 24, 2009, 11:18 pm

    mormonmom, thanks for the great info. As soon as we get moved, I’m going to follow up on all these links and do what I can. Thanks again.

  • Alison Moore Smith September 6, 2009, 10:14 am

    “The whole idea of our government is this: If enough people get together and act in concert, they can take something and not pay for it.”

    P.J. O’Rourke

  • Alison Moore Smith September 22, 2009, 10:58 pm

    Tinkerbell, this is what I notice:

    We regret any comments on the call that may have been misunderstood or troubled other participants.

    the appearance issues troubled some participants

    No, the white house wasn’t involved in anything nefarious. People just misunderstood, they are just misinformed, they just don’t get it. They are “spreading misinformation.”

    I heard a bunch of the transcript a couple of weeks ago. The White House was shoulder to shoulder with the NEA, using government grant programs to create “art” propaganda to further Obama’s agenda and issues. Now that it’s getting bad press, they have chosen a scapegoat to throw under the bus.

  • Tinkerbell September 23, 2009, 7:34 am

    Exactly, Alison. I am seeing a pattern emerge. The White House does something that is obviously “wrong” on some level. Then, when exposed, they say, “Oops. That won’t happen again”. And they wonder why people don’t trust Obama?

  • jennycherie September 23, 2009, 7:53 am

    another pattern I’ve noticed is that they announce plans for *something* (think cash for clunkers or president to address school children) and the public outcry is HUGE so they backpeddle, until they can make it more palatable for us to digest.

  • Alison Moore Smith September 25, 2009, 10:26 am

    I agree with you both, except, I don’t think they apologize for doing things that are dumb or wrong. THAT I could handle. They basically blame those who are upset. We just don’t understand what is really going on and are upset because we are too stupid to understand the intricacies of government action. Once Daddy explains it to us, we’ll be able to calm down and be rational.

  • Alison Moore Smith September 27, 2009, 6:54 pm

    Tinkerbell, thank you for bringing that to our attention. I wonder at what point people start to realize who the primary influencers of their kids are?

  • Oregonian October 5, 2009, 3:18 am

    my dad always used to say that people could tell who i was by looking at my friends. some day you’ve got to just look at obama and see who is around him. do you have that many corrupt friends? does he have any that aren’t corrrupt? its prety overwhelming the number of just straight evil people he hangs with.

  • Oregonian October 14, 2009, 8:14 am

    yesterday obama was praising the health care bill that just came out of committee even though it is contrary to so many things he promised over and over. hypocrite.

    what i really want to know is where are his defenders and supporters from this board while our country is going in the toilet.

  • facethemusic October 14, 2009, 10:53 am

    Wow Alison!!! Just read your last post and the links. For Heaven’s sake—it just AMAZES what scummy things members of the church can do. I mean, I know the Church doesn’t have a monopoly on honest people, but still….

    Hey Oregonian!!! Haven’t “seen” ya in awhile!!!

  • Alison Moore Smith October 14, 2009, 1:44 pm

    Oregonian, I saw a report by Neil Cavuto yesterday. Basically, he just played Obama in one clip after another (all from the past few months) making adamant claims and promises about health care (many from the “You lie!” speech) and then showed actual wording in the bill that just came out of committee contradicting what he’s said.

    I know you’ll be shocked to know that Joe Wilson was…ahem…right.

    Tracy, yea. It was odd to look back at all his past “stories” to see what the truth probably was. Sad, because he really was one of our dearest friends and we do know of his good qualities. But, wow. Creeper.

  • Tinkerbell October 16, 2009, 2:53 pm

    Is it a surprise that Obama says one thing and does another? It is becoming the rule rather than the exception, unfortunately. Actually, it appears that he has been this way from the beginning. He operates out of expediency to get the agenda done. But, shame on us! Shame on the American people for being so blind.

  • Alison Moore Smith October 17, 2009, 1:13 am

    Did you all see the clip of Anita Dunn, the White House communications director, (last June) speaking to high school students? She said that Mao Tse Tung is one of her two “favorite political philosophers” and one of “the two people that I turn to most.”

    Mao Tse Tung? A mass murder many times over Hitler? Seriously?

    Like I said, the people surrounding Obama are not just too liberal for my taste. They are incredibly radical and scary. Mao Tse Tung???? What is wrong with us that Obama can put such people all over in his administration and we just shrug?

  • Alison Moore Smith October 17, 2009, 1:14 am

    Oh, she responded today. She said she was just kidding.

    Watch the clip again. Let’s identify the big punch line.

  • jennycherie October 17, 2009, 4:57 am

    I saw the video of Anita Dunn yesterday – unbelievable! The only joke she made was her reference to linking Mother Teresa to Mao Tse Tung. Unbelievable. This should be offensive to EVERYone of EVERY political party!

  • facethemusic October 17, 2009, 6:59 am

    She said she was “kidding”? What a liar. It’s very evident from the video that she was very SERIOUS, not that she was kidding. I swear, everyday I’m more and more shocked at how people can be such bold-faced liars.

  • Tinkerbell October 21, 2009, 3:46 pm

    Wow, that is seriously frightening. It is obvious that she was serious. How in the world do these people get away with showing their true colors and then retracting with, “Oh it was a joke” or “I misspoke”, and then everyone just says, “Oh, okay”. WAKE UP!

  • Alison Moore Smith December 9, 2009, 5:45 pm

    Doesn’t this image scare you? :rolling:

    New scare from the White House today. Obama aid says that if congress doesn’t pass cap and trade, the EPA will simply force STRICTER regulation on Americans.

    Seriously?

    Glenn Beck has been right all along. Weird!

  • jennycherie December 9, 2009, 7:26 pm

    creepy!

  • Oregonian December 10, 2009, 8:08 am

    so if obama cant get his way through persuasion he’ll just take over.

  • Alison Moore Smith December 11, 2009, 9:44 am

    It’s actually a remarkable threat that was issued. And most people aren’t screaming about it, so they know they can push more.

  • jennycherie December 22, 2009, 4:49 am

    EXCELLENT article – I find it encouraging that some of his supporters are wise to his ways.

    Quote: In fact, it is a myth the fight is over health care at all. It is a vulgar power dispute between liberals and extreme liberals, with health care a convenient portal for command-and-control of 17 percent of the economy.

    I wish I could applaud! The bargaining that has been going on in our congress over health care is more akin to “legal” prostitution than meaningful healthcare reform. I think it is very important as well that he notes the LACK of discussion on actual health issues.

  • Alison Moore Smith December 22, 2009, 12:52 pm

    I couldn’t agree more. I’ve been fighting against pseudo-conservatives for years. First Cannon — who we finally got out and put Chaffetz in. Now Bennett and Hatch. Those who defend the party person — no matter what s/he does — are simply those who do not stand for principle at all, they simply stand for a power base.

  • jennycherie December 22, 2009, 5:15 pm

    Posted By: Alison Moore SmithThose who defend the party person — no matter what s/he does — are simply those who do not stand for principle at all, they simply stand for a power base.

    AMEN!!

  • kiar December 23, 2009, 5:53 pm

    I saw a bumper sticker that made me laugh a little today: (warning, a small curse word involved)

    OneBigA**MistakeAmerica

  • Alison Moore Smith January 15, 2010, 3:55 pm

    It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?

    ~James Madison, The Federalist #62

  • partone January 18, 2010, 1:34 pm

    If only our current government “leaders” got that. Charlie Rangel for example. What a fool.

  • Alison Moore Smith February 3, 2010, 9:57 am

    Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams has heart surgery this week … in the United States

    That’s because socialized health care is the best in the world.

  • Alison Moore Smith October 31, 2008, 2:05 pm

    Obama lies about botched abortion babies.

    What does Obama support?

    Obama’s priority.

    “Restrictive choice” and “reproductive justice”? Please tell me you recognize this is evil.

    Come on Mormons. You tell me this man has any moral fiber at all.

  • angcarrig October 31, 2008, 6:41 pm

    Posted By: Alison Moore SmithObama liesaboutbotched abortion babies.

    What does Obama support?

    Obama’s priority.

    “Restrictive choice” and “reproductive justice”? Please tell me you recognize this is evil.

    Come on Mormons. You tell me this man has any moral fiber at all.

    This is why I’m confused that someone here would say they were happy to vote for Obama. Even if you decide to vote for him for other reasons that you decide are more important than abortion, why do you do so happily? Why not do so while “holding your nose” at the thought of live babies left to die? Obama clearly places the choice of women over the right to life for babies who survive abortion. Even if you believe he had honorable constitutional quibbles about the wording of the ban, he admits that his quibbles were about the possibility of the ban influencing a woman’s choice. He is hesitant to pass a bill to save live children because it may somehow possibly interfere with the convenience of abortion. Convenience of choice is priority to him over right to medical services for children living outside the womb. We are happy about this? We are glad to have the opportunity to vote for him?

  • Alison Moore Smith November 1, 2008, 11:04 am

    Posted By: angcarrigCould you link to something about Obama calling for no nuclear weapons?

    angcarrig, I linked to it above. Here it is again.

    Here’s a pretty good summary of this part:

    To ensure peace throughout the world I will get rid of all our nuclear weapons. After I get rid of all our nuclear weapons, I’ll talk to all the other nations around the world about getting rid of their nuclear weapons too. After they hear what I have to say, they will be so impressed with me, they’ll get rid of all their nuclear weapons, and then we’ll all live happily ever after.

  • Alison Moore Smith November 1, 2008, 3:49 pm

    Posted By: NaismithWe can expect the Obama administration to be much like the Clinton administration,

    You mean Lewinski is back?

    since he is also a centrist Democrat

    :rolling:

    The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) has also been a boon to American parents and children of aging parents, in ensuring that someone doesn’t lose their job when they take time off to have a baby or care for ill parents or deal with an adoption

    While I think it’s probably been nice for many people, I don’t know that I agree with it as government-regulated POLICY for businesses. As a business owner, when someone gets weeks of leave, the work still has to get done. How does that happen? At whose expense? If YOU want to take a few weeks off (understandable) why should the BUSINESS be required to accommodate it?

    In my opinion, if YOU want a job that allows many weeks off for personal reasons, then YOU should FIND a job that accommodates that and/or gain the skills that make YOU valuable enough that your employers are willing to accommodate it. Or start your own business with the policies you think are important. But putting a regulation in place that forces businesses to provide certain benefits puts the burden in the wrong place.

    Their policies also promoted marriage,

    You know, I have a real hard time with anyone putting “Bill Clinton” and “promoting marriage” in the same sentence. I dare say Bill Clinton had way more to do with promoting adultery and womanizing with his BEHAVIOR than he could possibly have countered with any POLICY “promoting marriage.”

    Everything Obama has said makes me think those kind of pro-family progressive policies would continue and be expanded as funds from a growing economy became available.

    Read that: as people work for money and the government takes more of it to distribute as they see fit.

    I can’t see that anyone is defending abortion or claiming to be a socialist. I certainly am not. Sen. Obama is not.

    Obama absolutely defends abortion. Left of NARAL. That’s not easy to do. How do you define socialism?

    The right to an abortion is the law in the US, and the 12th Article of Faith says that we believe in “in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.”

    What the heck does that have to do with this discussion? Opposing abortion and attempting a change in law isn’t contrary to the 12th AoF.

    OBAMA: “If it sounds incredible that I would vote to withhold lifesaving treatment from an infant, that’s because it’s not true. The — here are the facts.”

    Yes, it it true. He lied in the debate and that has been verified. I linked to one page about that. You can easily find more. Heck, you can look at the votes and the bills. Obama wouldn’t know a fact if he aborted it.

    “With respect to partial-birth abortion, I am completely supportive of a ban on late-term abortions, partial-birth or otherwise, as long as there’s an exception for the mother’s health and life, and this did not contain that exception.”

    I love this twist. Rather than address partial birth abortion directly, even when asked directly, he throws in “late-term abortion” so that the answer misrepresents his position. He did not vote for the ban that was SPECIFICALLY FOR PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION. It wasn’t a broad bill banning late-term abortions. It was SPECIFIC to the D&X. He voted against it.

    The truth is, D&X–which he would NOT vote to ban–is NOT an emergency procedure. I’ll ask again:

    How a woman can deliver a child half-way without peril, and yet find that her life depends on the delivery being halted so that the baby can have scissors jammed in its skull and its brains extracted before the delivery is complete?

    “And I attempted, as many have in the past, of including that so that it is constitutional. And that was rejected, and that’s why I voted present, because I’m willing to support a ban on late-term abortions as long as we have that exception.”

    Amazing how the ban passed without his vote, isn’t it? And it’s amazing that the supreme court upheld the ban, isn’t it? I guess the constitutional genius was wrong!

    “We should try to prevent unintended pregnancies by providing appropriate education to our youth, communicating that sexuality is sacred and that they should not be engaged in cavalier activity, and providing options for adoption, and helping single mothers if they want to choose to keep the baby.”

    I would be interested to know what he has done to promote education of youth in minimizing cavalier sex.

    He has said he supports a ban on late-term abortions

    He said it, but he hasn’t vote for it. Ever.

    As latter-day saints, we should rejoice that a candidate shares our belief that sexuality is sacred. Why be so afraid of someone who shares such an essential core value with us?

    I guess it’s just the baby-brain-sucking thing that has tempered my joyous celebration.

    As to whether a proposal for universal health coverage is “socialism,” the Obama plan is quite close to Mitt Romney’s plan that was passed in Massachusetts and brought 10,000s of working Americans into having health coverage.

    I actually quite like Romney’s solution. But I haven’t seen Obama say anything that seemed to resemble this. Could you point me to a source for Obama’s health care plan and/or point out the similarities?

    Our brothers and sisters in Western Europe all have government-mandated health coverage, and nobody considers those democracies to be “socialist.”

    No, but they refer to their health care systems as “socialized medicine”! And health care is hardly the only thing that Obama wants publicly funded and government run.

  • Kathy November 5, 2008, 10:06 am

    But I can’t see anything he believes in that fits LDS teachings

    Here’s a webiste.

  • Alison Moore Smith November 5, 2008, 11:57 am

    Found a great essay on T&S.

    Abortion, Obama: Extreme Deeds, Meaningless Words [This has since been removed.]

    My sincere thanks to Adam Greenwood for the his efforts here. Here’s my favorite part:

    ObamaWith respect to partial-birth abortion, I am completely supportive of a ban on late-term abortions, partial-birth or otherwise, as long as there ?s an exception for the mother ?s health and life, and this did not contain that exception.

    Adam GreenwoodAll the opponents of the Partial Birth Abortion Act claimed to support it *in principle* if there were enough exceptions made to it. Obama is no different. Like most other opponents, he says he wants a ban on aborting partially-born babies only if an abortionist can circumvent the ban by certifying that he thinks the woman ?s mental health or other forms of well-being might be minimally adversely affected. Abortionists like Tiller in Kansas (who performs many of America ?s abortions of late-term babies) have stated that in their opinion any time a woman wants a particular abortion procedure performed, it would be detrimental to her mental health if she were denied it. Obama knows this. His qualified support of the a ban on partial birth abortions is an unqualified mirage.

    Here’s a comment I agree with, as well:

    Dan EllsworthIt ?s very unusual for me to agree with Adam Greenwood so strongly, but I wish Obama voters would simply acknowledge Obama ?s abortion position for what it is: a complete and unequivocal refusal to consider the humanity of a fetus at any stage of development. I have never seen him make any attempt to understand or acknowledge any dimension of the abortion issue regardless of the term of the fetus in question other than a woman ?s right to choose.

  • Alison Moore Smith November 5, 2008, 12:00 pm

    Here’s another link to Obama’s abortion positions, also by Adam Greenwood [post later removed]. These positions are why I find a vote for him unconscionable.[I think Adam’s post has since been made private.]

  • Amy E November 5, 2008, 1:31 pm

    I read the message to LDS readers. If the New Deal and the Great Society are examples of how government can help people, I don’t know it reconciles with welfare principles as the Church teaches. The Church teaches self-reliance, work, industry, thrift, and independence. I don’t see the government doing well at teaching much of that. It’s usually just something for nothing and encourages dependence on the government. When Democrats promote policies that encourage self-reliance and not just forced redistribution of income, maybe I can see how the Democratic party is a better fit for members of the Church.

  • Alison Moore Smith November 5, 2008, 2:17 pm

    I agree, Amy E. Ronald Reagan praised the church’s version of welfare–which is markedly different from the governments. I don’t think a democrat president ever has expressed interest.

    Here is my favorite page on the Mormon democrat website:

    Abstinence Only Programs

    Very informative.

    “Capitalism and Communism,” “Charity and Welfare,”Separation of Church and State,” “Democratic Party Platform,” Environment,” “Evangelicals and the Rapture,” “Gay Marriage,” “Guns,” “Morality,” “One Issue Voting,” and “Who are Christians?” sections are also blank. I guess he couldn’t think of anything to say?

    I have no idea what the “Evolution and Creation,” “Israel and Palestine,” and “Pledge of Allegiance” sections are imagined to prove about the different parties.

    “Alcohol” and “Tobacco and Smoking” sections have some data about the two issues. Then say that the industries involved in both contribute to lots of Republican candidates. And the point is?

    The only page with anything valid is the “War in Iraq” page. But it doesn’t reconcile all the democrats who voted for the war (like Hillary Clinton). And the quotes are so lopsided as to seriously question the integrity of the webmaster. Where are the quotes about defending people, rights, country, and religion? Where are the quote about defending others, such as those issued during the Vietnam war?

    I’m sorry, but if Saddam Hussein had been the dictator in my country, I would have prayed to God for intervention from a stronger military. But that’s just me.

  • Alison Moore Smith December 23, 2008, 2:30 pm

    Earlier in this discussion (you know, when my nephew and nieces were accused of lying to get into school cheaper) we talked about the opportunity to attend college. Wanted to include this info for those considering attending college in Utah.

    In a nutshell, you can qualify for residency if you live here and support yourself for 12 months. Many states have similar laws, check into yours. Here are Utah’s residency qualifications:

    • Reside in Utah for 12 continuous months (cannot leave the state for longer than 30 days).
    • Not claimed as a dependent on the tax returns of a person who is not a resident of Utah. Must provide proof (first page of parent tax return showing that student was not claimed).
    • Take steps to establish intent to become a resident of Utah, for example obtaining a Utah driver ?s license. Need to make copies of documentation to accompany application.
    • Submit an application for residency within 15 days after the beginning of each semester.

    There are a bunch of other ways to qualify as well:

    • A family moves to Utah for employment purposes. The spouse and children are immediately eligible for Utah residency. Must provide proof of employment.
    • A person who can demonstrate that they have moved to Utah due to an employer-requested transfer to Utah, recruitment by a Utah employer, or comparable full-time employment move to Utah may be eligible. Supporting proof includes a.) dates when employment was considered, offered, and accepted; b.) when the person moved to Utah, c.) when the person applied for admission (cannot be sooner than 4 months after the move), d.) evidence that person is independent (at least 24 years old, not a dependent on another’s tax returns, e.) other factors showing abandonment of another domicile and evidence of a new domicile in Utah. The burden of proof is on the individual, and a person will likely not qualify if they applied for admission prior to the employment offer, or prior to 4 months from moving to the state.
    • A student who marries a Utah resident is immediately eligible for Utah residency following the marriage (in addition to other documentation, copy of marriage license is mandatory). Please note that this provision only applies to students who are marrying current Utah residents.
    • A student ?s parents are divorced or separated and at least one of the parents is a legal Utah resident.
    • A student who is receiving state social services benefits, which assist in paying tuition, are eligible for residency. A letter from the social services agency is needed along with the application and other supporting documentation showing permanency. Their eligibility is discontinued when the agency is no longer providing financial assistance.
    • United States Armed Forces personnel may be eligible – Individuals who are on “active duty” in Utah, have declared Utah as their “home of record” (on LES), were Utah residents prior to active duty deployment (and return to Utah within 90 days of release), or active members of the Utah National Guard.
    • Extenuating circumstances – A person who has established domicile in Utah for child care obligations or extenuating financial/health reasons related to his or her divorce, the death of a spouse, or long-term health care needs or responsibilities related to the student’s health, or the health of an immediate family member (spouse, parent, sibling, child). Proof must be provided that move to Utah was, in good faith, based on such extenuating circumstances.
    • A Native American whose reservation or trust lands are either in Utah or in a state which is contiguous with Utah. Must provide tribal roll ID.
    • A Utah High School graduate who leaves the state, is not given residency in another state, and returns to Utah within 4 years may be eligible.
    • For additional exceptions, see R512, Determination of Resident Status
  • Alison Moore Smith January 21, 2009, 4:58 pm

    From the National Organization for Marriage:

    Less than 24 hours into the new administration, President Obama is sending America a radical new message about marriage.

    Updated just minutes after the inauguration, the new Obama White House website declares “we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act,” instantly jeopardizing the marriage laws of 45 states, including constitutional amendments in 30 states where voters have recently acted to give marriage the greatest protection possible at the state level. Instead of protecting the will of voters all across the country, President Obama’s policy would allow a handful of judges in Massachusetts and Connecticut to force same-sex marriage on the entire nation.

    If you want to fight this, send an email.

    Here we go. Change we can believe in.

  • Alison Moore Smith January 21, 2009, 5:29 pm
  • Alison Moore Smith January 27, 2009, 1:53 pm

    The British called – They want their guns back!

    40% increase since firearms ban was introduced. Interesting.

  • Alison Moore Smith January 30, 2009, 1:11 pm
  • Alison Moore Smith February 9, 2009, 3:49 pm

    Obama decided to remove the census from the jurisdiction of the commerce department. What does that mean? It means the rules by which the census is run is no longer required to have congress’ approval and open debate. Yippee.

  • Alison Moore Smith February 21, 2009, 10:39 am

    Ray, Kristen is employing a bit of hyperbole, but the core of her statements is true to a great extent. For example, can you point to many public school history texts that actually explain in any depth the profound and pervasive affect God had on our founding fathers? The omissions are pretty consistent in spite of substantial documentation that makes those omissions glaring.

    Here’s one very quickly googled article on Columbus, if you’re interested. (I haven’t read the whole thing, but scanned to see that it adds some insight.) But I’m sure Kristen can provide more info. I don’t have much online time today.

  • jennycherie February 22, 2009, 9:11 am

    great point, davidson! I went looking on youtube, and found it:

    Everybody Tells the Truth

  • jennycherie February 22, 2009, 9:16 am

    Here is the 2nd part of it and the ending.

  • Alison Moore Smith February 24, 2009, 1:42 am

    Posted By: RayIs anyone saying that it’s wrong for a textbook to mention the “relationship” – that mentioning it at all automatically casts Jefferson as a lecherous pervert, so it shouldn’t be mentioned?

    Um…yea. It’s probably not a great character recommendation for someone to impregnate a slave you aren’t married to who is 30 years your junior (you know, when she’s 17 or 18 and your almost 50). That’s kind of skanky behavior, don’t you think? And since “the relationship” is just speculation–tabloid speculation at that–why would you want to include it in a HISTORY book? What does gossip-mongering prove or teach children? (Except maybe, “See, even Jefferson was just as scummy as Bill Clinton!”)

    It’s highly problematic to modify history hundreds of years after the fact–when the people involved are more than just names in a book–but when neither they nor their contemporaries are around to address the issue. But there are so many things in dispute about the whole issue, that I find ruining the reputation of a dead man to be appalling.

    Do you know that one of the people who has revived the allegations was none other than…Fawn Brodie? How did Nibley say it? “No man, that’s not history.”

  • Alison Moore Smith February 26, 2009, 11:02 am

    Ha! Lewis!

    Just got a letter from Northwestern Mortgage in Draper, Utah. The letter, from broker Blake Reese, is promoting a new government program–part of the bailout money–that is specifically for veterans. These are some of the features:

    • 100% value loans, no down payment required
    • Not dependent on applicant’s credit score
    • “Easy approval process with less restrictions”

    Doesn’t this sound pretty much like what got us into this mess in the first place?

  • Amy E February 26, 2009, 10:40 pm

    I find it very interesting, but not surprising, that an entire section of the March 2009 Ensign is focused on self-reliance. If you look at the Church’s teachings on this subject, the general counsel is that we rely on ourselves first, then our families, then the Church. The only mention I find in regards to government assistance in “Providing the Lord’s Way: A Leader’s Guide to Welfare” is on page 15. This is the relevant paragraph, emphasis added by me.

    “Latter-day Saints have the responsibility to provide for themselves and their families. Individual members, however, may find it necessary to receive assistance beyond that which the family can provide, in which case they may turn to the Church for help. In some instances, individual members may decide to receive assistance from other sources, including government. In all such cases, members should avoid becoming dependent upon these sources and strive to become self-reliant. Where possible, they should work in return for assistance rendered.”

    I think that the key point, at least from the Church’s perspective, is that whatever assistance we choose, that whenever possible we should work for what we receive and avoid becoming dependent on that assistance, government welfare included.

    Posted By: NaismithWhere I live, we have the opposite problem. People don’t like to accept welfare. SCHIP is more acceptable, because they do pay premiums. Those premiums are nominal, and some state administrators complain that the state loses money in the collection process, but folks feel that they are contributing, and the $25 a month is often a stretch for them.

    Naismith, if your state is like Washington state, then many people have to take SCHIP since that is the only affordable option. This, as I understand it, is because the government has regulated private insurance so much that it is prohibitively expensive for many. To me, the premium required by SCHIP is mostly a feel-good measure for those who would otherwise not take government assistance. It’s another way that government is trying to lull us all into accepting more and more governmental control over our lives by limiting our choices.

  • Alison Moore Smith March 3, 2009, 11:54 am

    As an aside (since I really don’t want to discuss Mr. Blue Dress in the thread about how creeped out Obama’s policies are), the supposed “surplus” under Clinton didn’t come about because he has some imagined firm hand guiding the budgetary wheel. Clinton increased spending by nearly 30% during his reign of terror over the interns. [Link to gpoaccess.gov broken.}

  • Ray March 13, 2009, 4:40 pm

    I’ve said all along the spending issue isn’t a Democratic problem – that it’s bi-partisan. The following link is interesting:

    Republican Earmarks Taint Spending Criticism

  • Alison Moore Smith March 14, 2009, 12:19 pm

    I don’t think anyone has claimed that the Republican party is somehow absolved for their part. But the support on the scheisting of America (round 2009) was definitely NOT a bi-partisan effort.

    You might remember that I wasn’t a McCain supporter and I don’t pull punches on Republican idiots either. They’ve been generally traitorious to the conservative cause. I’m fully in support, for example, of getting Orrin Hatch OUT of congress–just as I have been vocally (for years) against long-time republican house member Chris Cannon. I supported the candidate against him, John Jacob, three years ago and this past year he lost out to the candidate I supported, Jason Chaffetz.

    Back to Obama.

    Yesterday–in a stunning reversal from his incessant droning on about economic “catastrophe” (hint: while trying to garner support to spend us into a black hole)–he said WE NEED TO FOCUS ON THE FAT THAT THE BASIC FUNDAMENTALS IN OUR ECONOMY ARE STRONG (hint: while noting the increasing disapproval and protesting about his unbelievably illogical spending proposals and finally realizing that his end-times rhetoric was actually causing further harm).

    I think the spirit of John McCain has possessed our president! Call out the guard!

    Or maybe he’s just a liar.

    Meanwhile, back in the real world, a Wall Street Journal poll of economists gave Obama (and Timothy Tax-Cheat Guithner) a failing grade. The only dumb thing about that is that it took a poll of economists for the Wall Street Journal to figure it out.

  • Alison Moore Smith April 30, 2009, 9:00 pm

    nanacarol, thank you for the kind words, but I’m REALLY no politician. Stand up and be heard, yes. Run, no.

    Your comment about the puppet was really interesting. Did any of you see the press conference where the teleprompter got ahead of Obama. He had no idea what to do. Palin gave her entire speech off the cuff–and she was mocked. Obama was lost.

    Look at Obama’s behavior since before the election on going after interrogators. Who, in the matter of just a couple of days, caused him to do a 180°on that issue? As they say in Eagle Mountain, “Who’s on his bluetooth?”

  • Alison Moore Smith May 1, 2009, 6:23 pm

    Oregonian, heather, yes, the Biden gaff was HILLARIOUS.

    Here is Biden’s statement. Here is Robert Gibbs “translation” of what Biden said.

    Even my kids were DYING as we watched.

    Gibbs is just a raving, stinking liar. Listen to that. He isn’t clever enough to make a plausible spin and even the press corps LAUGHED at his blatantly bogus answer.

  • Tinkerbell July 22, 2009, 7:04 pm

    My vote is liar.

  • Alison Moore Smith August 3, 2009, 12:21 am

    You wanna get freaked out about loss of our rights?

    Cash for Clunkers owns you

  • Tinkerbell August 4, 2009, 9:14 pm

    Look at how those who oppose Obamacare and are making their voices heard are being portrayed by Democrats:

    The White House said Tuesday that some of the anger that Democratic lawmakers have encountered at town hall meetings over the past several days is “manufactured.”

    Rep. Llloyd Doggett, D-Texas, was surrounded by protesters shouting “Just say no!” to Democrats’ health plans in Texas over the weekend. He accused Republicans of organizing the opposition.

    “This mob … did not come just to be heard, but to deny others the right to be heard. And this appears to be part of a coordinated, nationwide effort,” Doggett said in a statement. “What could be more appropriate for the ‘party of not’ than having its stalwarts drowning out the voices of their neighbors by screaming ‘Just say no!'”

    The Democratic National Committee has dismissed the protests as “mob rule.”

    “The Republicans and their allied groups desperate after losing two consecutive elections and every major policy fight on Capitol Hill … are inciting angry mobs of a small number of rabid right wing extremists funded by K Street Lobbyists to disrupt thoughtful discussions about the future of health care in America taking place in Congressional Districts across the country,” DNC spokesman Brad Woodhouse said in a statement.

    Woodhouse said Republican operatives and special interests are funding and organizing these groups in an effort to stop Obama’s top domestic priority.

    “The right wing extremists’ use of things like devil horns on pictures of our elected officials, hanging members of Congress in effigy, breathlessly questioning the president’s citizenship and the use of Nazi SS symbols and the like just shows how outside of the mainstream the Republican Party and their allies are,” he said. “This type of anger and discord did not serve Republicans well in 2008 … and it is bound to backfire again.”

    UNBELIEVEABLE. If you oppose Obama, you must be a “right wing extremist” or “organized by Republicans”. They find any way they can to dimiss the opposition. They treat common people like idiots. It makes me so mad.

  • Tinkerbell August 5, 2009, 4:02 pm

    Here’s another article full of scary stuff.

    Notice the tactics:
    1. By calling the people “angry mobs”, they are setting them up to do something about it. Wouldn’t the government have the right to disperse an angry mob?
    2. “It’s time to expose this charade, before it gets more dangerous,” Jen O’Malley, head of the DNC, said, urging recipients to pass it along. Calling it “dangerous” is another way to set up the situation for the government to do something about it.
    3. On Tuesday, the White House issued a blog post by Macon Phillips, director of new media, asking supporters to send “fishy” information received through rumors, chain e-mails and casual conversation to a White House e-mail address, flag@whitehouse.gov.

    Cornyn responded by accusing the White House of compiling an “enemies list.” In a letter to the president, Cornyn urged Obama to provide Congress with more details on what the White House plans to do with anyone reported for “fishy” speech. Well, that’s pretty darn scary. What will they do with that information? Go after them with the IRS like Clinton liked to do?
    4. The Democrats call the people in town halls “duped”. That just fits in with the whole, “You as a common citizen are too stupid to know anything, so we have to make decisions for you”.

    Like I said, SCARY. I feel like I am living in the twilight zone. Our freedoms are so close to being abolished.

  • Tinkerbell August 7, 2009, 5:32 pm

    This just gets better and better. I don’t need to listen to talking heads to form any opinions – I just need to listen to the words right out of Obama’s own mouth. Unbelievable.

    After accusing the health care protesters of being organized by the RNC, Obama is organizing his supporters to go protest. I am sure you got this email, Alison, but just for anyone else’s benefit who might be interested, here are some of the things Obama says:

    They are filling the airwaves and the Internet with outrageous falsehoods to scare people into opposing change.

    Most of the emails I have received about this include quotes from the actual bill – not fabrications or falsehoods. Actual quotes from the bill showing what is really in it.

    If they succeed, all Americans — Democrats, Republicans, and Independents — will continue to struggle under the broken status quo

    This is another thing that bugs me. Proponents of Obama’s plan are portraying it as all or nothing. Either we have to go with this huge monstrosity or we won’t do anything. Give me a break. Lets look at other options. I definitely want healthcare reform, but I don’t want this plan. It is full of all sorts of special interest junk.

    The OFA e-mail described opponents of health care reform as a “tiny minority being stirred up by special interests” and urged citizens to call their local representatives.

    Um, apparently they didn’t see the latest polls that show that the majority of Americans oppose Obama’s plan? Isn’t that a blatant lie – to call the majority a “tiny minority”?

    Of course this article comes from FOXnews. When I looked at msnbc.com, they didn’t have a single article on the front page about health care reform. Cnn.com linked to one article – an opinion page that basically sounded like Obama’s talking points.

  • mormonmom August 12, 2009, 9:37 pm

    Did you hear that since the “angry town hall meeting in Missouri”, the word socialist may be a “code for the ‘n’ word”? MSNBC clip.

    Yeah, us protesters out here in Missouri get paid by the GOP to protest! And, we have code words for EVERYTHING too! We actually staged this union guy who would come and start a fight with us. Video

    I just wish someone would tell me when I get my paycheck for attending a tax day tea party? And, I wonder why all those signs were home made, if everyone was paid by rich Republicans to be there? Oh, and our anger is just faked…yeah…I know mine is…:devil:

    Oh good grief!

  • Tinkerbell August 14, 2009, 2:09 pm

    A couple of days ago, I read this article that says Economists polled by the WSJ think the recession is over, and therefore, Ben Bernanke should get another term. That didn’t sound right to me. Today I read this article that says there isn’t really any data to support the idea that the recession is over. It makes me think that the talk about the recession being over is just a ploy to keep Bernanke. It seems politically motivated.

  • facethemusic August 17, 2009, 8:50 pm

    Check out this statement from the American College of Surgeons— they’re coming out in droves to call Obama to the carpet.

  • mormonmom August 19, 2009, 6:36 am

    Posted By: facethemusicCheck out thisstatement from the American College of Surgeons— they’re coming out in droves to call Obama to the carpet.

    I read that last night. Very well put. I sent it to a few friends to read too.

  • Tinkerbell September 22, 2009, 10:25 pm

    Okay, this is just getting out of control. Please read this article and tell me what you think.

  • Tinkerbell September 27, 2009, 4:03 pm

    Well, I think I just might have to jump on the homeschool bandwagon soon. President Obama wants kids to spend more hours in school. A few gems from the article:

    The president, who has a sixth-grader and a third-grader, wants schools to add time to classes, to stay open late and to let kids in on weekends so they have a safe place to go.

    Obama and Duncan say kids in the United States need more school because kids in other nations have more school.

    “Young people in other countries are going to school 25, 30 percent longer than our students here,” Duncan told the AP. “I want to just level the playing field.”

    While it is true that kids in many other countries have more school days, it’s not true they all spend more time in school.

    Kids in the U.S. spend more hours in school (1,146 instructional hours per year) than do kids in the Asian countries that persistently outscore the U.S. on math and science tests Singapore (903), Taiwan (1,050), Japan (1,005) and Hong Kong (1,013). That is despite the fact that Taiwan, Japan and Hong Kong have longer school years (190 to 201 days) than does the U.S. (180 days).

    What is it called when the administration says something that isn’t true?

    But, if you really, want to know what this is about, it is summed up in one sentence:

    Aside from improving academic performance, Education Secretary Duncan has a vision of schools as the heart of the community.

    Hmm. I thought the HOME was supposed to be the heart of the community. Scary. Stuff.

  • Alison Moore Smith September 27, 2009, 4:49 pm

    Tinkerbell, I just dropped into post this link. Will read your comments after the VTs come!

    With Obama’s great need for “social justice,” I saved this article from Thomas Sowel, published in his syndicated column last July. Hope you’ll take a look!

    A Personal Inequity

  • Alison Moore Smith October 5, 2009, 12:06 pm

    I honestly think there is a lot to this.

    I have one formerly close friend who is now in jail. He stole hundreds of thousands of dollars from people among other things. The “funny” thing is, that his wife on that site isn’t his wife. He has been married for 23 years (in the temple) to my dear friend — who is not that woman. Add bigamist to his rap sheet. Sam and I met them in one of our first married student wards and became close friends. We served in the church with them. Blah blah blah. And, when we hired Jeff to do some sub-contract work when we lived in Florida (and flew him out to Boca, where he stayed in our home in 1998), he did he level best to rip us off. That was when our friendship kind of turned to former friendship. But we had no idea.

    Other than that happy experience, I can’t think of a single friend of ours who is a crook, is crooked, etc.

    Well, I take that back. I’ve told you about the nefarious goings-on in Eagle Mountain. The same group is still there and I was friendly with some of them at various points. But the public record is very clear that once I saw anything underhanded going on, I spoke up about it and, obviously, alienated myself from the corruption.

    Obama launches his political career in the HOME of a founder of the Weather Underground — who bombed the Pentagon, etc. He surrounds himself with utter radicals and revolutionaries and slumlords and communists, people who promote birth control in drinking water, state-forced abortion, lawyers for animals, extreme “social justice,” etc. Yet he claims some nonsensical kind of plausible deniability and some people actually go along with it.

    How radical are the people around you? Do you hang with anyone who remotely resembles Obama’s gaggle of “advisors”?

    This past week he even said he didn’t KNOW that ACORN gets a lot of government funding. Like I said a few years ago, he’s either really dumb or really dishonest. Is either trait acceptable in our country’s leader? Is this really the best we can get? (Answer: probably, as long as we put up with corruption.)

  • Alison Moore Smith December 21, 2009, 3:42 pm

    Dreading Our Future

    And this is a guy who VOTED for Obama.

    President Obama, for whom I voted because I believed he was the best choice available, is a profound disappointment. I now regard his campaign as a sly bait-and-switch operation, promising one thing and delivering another. Shame on me.

  • Lisa conant March 5, 2012, 2:07 pm

    So funny (well, sad, actually) to be reading this as another election nears, and see how right on target you were almost 4 years ago…you could have been reading my mind then…I wonder what you are saying now, lol (found this in a google search for another “beejeebers” thing…didn’t go hunting for politics)

  • Alison Moore Smith October 8, 2012, 10:53 pm

    Lisa, I just saw your comment. Thank you. It’s worse than I ever imagined. Certainly hope Romney can come through victorious.
    Alison Moore Smith recently posted…Finish 2012 StrongMy Profile

Leave a Comment

CommentLuv badge

Next post:

Previous post: