meant more like: it is likely that those who speak for removing income tax and repealing any regulation on sight are more likely to be those paid for by big corporations and the filthy rich. unless the regulation means suppressing information or snooping on our privacy.

difficult to say who’s more likely to vote for what, unless we follow the money. which naturally is a bit difficult, with the loopholes existing in election funding. often the money really seems to start arriving in someone’s pocket after they leave legislatures, in the figurative sense of the phrase, so it’s difficult to prove any crime.

i think that their understanding of the non-existent choice re baptism for the dead does build on the understanding that gayness isn’t a choice, either. personally, i have no choice about being dull instead of gay. ;)

i think “famous dead mormons” is a better satire.

to quit bragging: surely, that c-note is not on top of the “stupid” phone’s bill? i expect quite a few people had a cell phone previous to the smart one, and you can get 450 min plus unlimited text and data for 80 smackaroonies per month, if that c-net piece is anything to go by.

but i get the part about the utility bills going up… i’ve complained more than i care to remember. money for discretionary spending seems easier to come by than for essentials, perhaps because the latter are by definition not optional so we feel less eager to spend it, no matter how illogical that is.

Of course, that’s the whole element of the discussion taking place in the media about the doctrine of baptism for the dead that’s being left out of the discussion: they don’t want to argue about the doctrine as WE teach it, they would much rather discuss their mistaken understanding of our doctrine, in which agency plays no part. If you try to assert that agency is an essential part of our teaching about the doctrine, then they just declare it a stupid doctrine not worth discussion at all and then they move on to some other topic.

Obviously we hope that when some spirits of the departed learn the gospel, they’ll gladly accept the baptisms we perform here, but that hardly means that we think they or anyone is less “mature” for not seeking out or accepting the gospel here or there!

I’m sure you were just trying to show sympathy with the good intentions of others, but I thought that needed clarifying.

And if this goes through, it will give a great opportunity to shut down sites that publish things that are embarrassing to rich corporations or billionaires.

In other words, that would mean censorship.

So yes, and BTW, I was baptised against my will when I was a newborn. It offended me when I found out. But now I’m more mature and understand they were doing what they thought were right.

I would not vote for Romney, but this is part of a political smear campaign and the wingnut blogosphere is alight.