Comments for Council of Fifty

Comment on The Relevance of Hypocrisy by BrianJ

BrianJ — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 01:53:11 +0000

Clark, you nailed it. A family of four living on $120,000/yr has ~17X more income than a family of four living on $40,000/yr. That’s right: 40 x 17 = 120.

When you subtract a basic living wage ($35,000/yr—which is just my very rough estimate) from the gross income, the wealthy family is left with many times more discretionary income.

Comment on John McCain Strongly Disagrees With John McCain by Clark

Clark — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 03:35:28 +0000

Michelle both candidates are flip flopping like crazy. On the other hand Dan is right as well. But then a lot of Republicans always thought McCain was more like a Democrat anyway… (grin)

Comment on The Relevance of Hypocrisy by Clark

Clark — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 03:32:36 +0000

To add, if you’re rich you should have the disposable income to do more for the environment and not pollute like a 100 regular people. Why not lay down the money for solar power and cut yourself off the grid entirely? What about a few wind generators? Just think what an example that would be.

Heck, say what one will about Swartzenegger but at least he had the guts to trade in his fleet of H1s for a Prius.

Comment on The Relevance of Hypocrisy by Clark

Clark — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 03:30:36 +0000

BrianJ nailed it.

More precisely to the point a lot of the rich are asking regular folk to sacrifice in ways they are completely and utterly unwilling to do. Is it honestly any surprise that people get a bit pissed off when some rich idiot has a private jet for 4 people that contributes hundreds of times more to the problem than my SUV?

This isn’t just not living up to your own high standards. It’s thinking standards are for everyone but the rich and powerful.

Comment on The Relevance of Hypocrisy by a random John

a random John — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 16:47:56 +0000

Hypocrisy is an overrated “sin”. It simply means that you haven’t lived up to your own high standards. An easy way to avoid the charge is to have low standards. Many choose this path. Personally, I wish that we would stop looking at hypocrisy as a sin at all. Of course this would mean judging people by our own set of standards rather than theirs, which is itself dangerous territory.

As a side note I recently tried desperately to explain to my bishop why I don’t see hypocrisy as a big deal. He remained unconvinced.

Comment on The Relevance of Hypocrisy by MCQ

MCQ — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 18:25:14 +0000

Michelle, you are so smart! You must have had very good Sunday School teachers

Comment on The Relevance of Hypocrisy by Michelle Glauser

Michelle Glauser — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 21:47:11 +0000

Wow, that is exactly what I thought when people complained to me about Al Gore. So someone says we shouldn’t smoke, but then he smokes. Does that mean we should all start smoking? Nooooooo.

Comment on The Relevance of Hypocrisy by MCQ

MCQ — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 20:51:33 +0000

I think the only relevance hypocrisy has to an argument is when a person is asking the audience to sacrifice for a common cause, yet he or she is not willing to sacrifice for that cause. It doesn’t make their cause less compelling, it just makes it possible (for those who wish to do so) to say, “Ok, we’ll sacrifice to solve this problem as soon as you show us that you are willing to do the same.”

The problem is that you can always find some perceived hypocrisy. I was watching an argument being made by Sen. Hollings once where he was saying that it was important for Americans who were concerned about the trade deficit to buy American products. Sam Donaldson obnoxiously asked him where his suit was made. Hollings was furious, and asked Donaldson, “Where was that awful rug made?” pointing at Donaldson’s toupe. The argument about the trade deficit was lost in the finger pointing. We should not let petty issues of perceived hypocrisy destroy the force of valid arguments for ation. We should, however, expect our leaders to make an honest attempt to practice what they preach.

Comment on Mitt’s Confrontation by AwakeAndArise.Org/blog » Blog Archive » A conversation between God and Mitt Romney

Sun, 29 Jun 2008 04:54:50 +0000

[...] http://counciloffifty.com/?p=193 [...]

Comment on Mitt’s Confrontation by Shaun Knapp

Shaun Knapp — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 04:44:12 +0000

The only major problem with this is that the Omnicient, Omnipresent God would have acknowledged Ron Paul is proving vastly more valient than Mitt, and in this dialogue there was Ron Paul who God would have acknowledged was true to the Standards God spoke in favor of, such as the war. Ron Paul was the lone voice on that subject.

It is of note that Ezra Taft Benson said, quoting Orson F. Whitney:

“God, the Father of us all, uses the men of the earth, especially good men, to accomplish his purposes. It has been true in the past, it is true today, it will be true in the future.

‘Perhaps the Lord needs such men on the outside of His Church to help it along,’ said the late Elder Orson F. Whitney of the Quorum of the Twelve. ‘They are among its auxiliaries, and can do more good for the cause where the Lord has placed them, than anywhere else. … Hence, some are drawn into the fold and receive a testimony of the truth; while others remain unconverted …the beauties and glories of the gospel being veiled temporarily from their view, for a wise purpose. The Lord will open their eyes in His own due time. God is using more than one people for the accomplishment of His great and marvelous work. The Latter-day Saints cannot do it all. It is too vast, too arduous for any one people. … We have no quarrel with the Gentiles. They are our partners in a certain sense.’ ” (Conference Report, April 1928, p. 59.) – Pres. Benson, “Civic Standards For the Faithful Saints, 1972 General Conference.”

It’s unfortunate, as the dialogue is mean to express, that Mitt failed to live up to principles he should have stood valiant on.