Mormon Church negotiates for Italian Welfare!

[Guest]

Yes: because I understand how the Church works.

And your understanding of how the LDS Church works in this instance was supported by a story about one high school in New Zealand. Can't say I am terribly impressed.

Nearly right; that's actually why you and the rest of the oink chorus find it so attractive.

Yeah, that is probably true. At the same time, you aren't wowing me with your evidence and arguments to persuade others of your view. Believe me when I say that your bilious behavior and threadbare argumentation does nothing to burnish the reputation of the Church you love almost as much as your ego.

Oh, so then you wouldn't have written anything like this:

It is in that mode of doing business that the LDS Church has its hands outstretched to feed on the labors of the Italian worker.

Except you did.

Everything I wrote was conditional upon the story being true. I am satisfied by the argument that the claim was false, so I quickly and happily conceded that.

So the events proved me right. [*this is the payoff that Pahoran lives for: to claim to be right all the time, and have it confirmed every once in a while, so he can double down on his self congratulations] The Church publicly stated that it was not interested in participating in GWB's faith-based initiatives, as I predicted, leaving the swine who so readily assumed it would be eager to "feed on the labors of the worker" with egg all over their snouts.

Which vastly improved their looks.

Yes, events seem to have proved you right. They have to my satisfaction, but that is generally how I deal with things. I have an opinion, and if someone can show me persuasive evidence to the contrary, I will change my mind. Doing so leaves me with no egg on my face at all. Rather, unlike you, I come out as clearly having been true to my principles in following the evidence.

Poor, poor Pahoran. I am more amenable to changing my mind than you are to changing your counterproductive apologetic methods. It's tough for the old dogs to learn new tricks.

[Guest]

Why is one of the Church's PR people is being treated like a reliable and authoritative source here? At best, it seems to me that this is going to entail a "wait and see" attitude. Sure: maybe the Church will stand by it's "promise," but the only way to know for certain is to wait until all the paperwork has been squared away.

I'm certainly prepared to "wait and see" what kind of convoluted theory the scumbag-in-chief is going to come up with. I'm guessing that your alters, I mean "informants," will start whispering into your brain that there is some "faction" within the Church that is really trying to squeeze a few lire out of the Italian government; every bit of data that runs counter to that idiotic notion will be treated as if it supported it; and in the end, when the Church really does enter into an agreement that gets it no dosh, you will either assert that some competing "faction" stopped the first "faction" from getting its way, or else that the Church was somehow "defeated" and had to accept a deal in which it got only what it really wanted in the first place.

Or perhaps both.

Okay. I guess neutrality is not an option in your book? Been reading too much Elder Packer lately, I suppose?

Plus, what's the deal with Zackrison's weirdly shifting affiliation? First he's "in-house" counsel, and now he's "outside" counsel with a law firm known for aggressively going after the Church's "enemies"? What's up with that?

It's called "changing employment." Professional people often do that as their careers progress, as you would know if you actually knew any professional people.

Regards,
Pahoran

Oh, come on, now. He didn't really "change employment." He's still basically doing the Church's bidding, hence why he was quoted in the article.

[_Kishkumen]

Okay. I guess neutrality is not an option in your book?

LOL.

Oh, come on, now. He didn't really "change employment." He's still basically doing the Church's bidding, hence why we was quoted in the article.

It's akin to the revolving door between Congress and the lobbyists.

[_Pahoran]

Yes: because I understand how the Church works.

And your understanding of how the LDS Church works in this instance was supported by a story about one high school in New Zealand. Can't say I am terribly impressed.

And the GWB faith-based initiatives effort; and now this. You are studiously ignoring the fact that the Church keeps proving me right, and the "It's all about the money" crowd wrong.

Poor, poor Pahoran. I am more amenable to changing my mind than you are to changing your counterproductive apologetic methods. It's tough for the old dogs to learn new tricks.

When it comes to tricks, I admit that you've mastered one I've never managed. When you're performing for your tame audience, you are strutting, and stroking the prejudices you share with them, and sneering at the Mormons as well as any of them could; but as soon as a Latter-day Saint comes along, you immediately switch to your other face and start posing as the Earnest Impartial Seeker of TRVTH.

How do you do that?

And Kishkumen, since it's all about you, might I suggest that you work on getting your quoting right? You seem to have misattributed about half of your quotes in your replies to me.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Jersey Girl]

Oh thank goodness! Just when I was about to sink beneath the depths of complete and utter boredom...


Pahoran

Since "all you can say" is false, you might actually be better off saying nothing.

I'm stealing this line and I don't care who knows it.

[_Kishkumen]

And the GWB faith-based initiatives effort

Yeah, I tried to do you a solid by including the only part of the steaming pile incoherent nonsense you dropped on the thread that seemed to have something close to relevance to the matter at hand.

...as soon as a Latter-day Saint comes along, you immediately switch to your other face and start posing as the Earnest Impartial Seeker of TRVTH.

How do you do that?

Nothing changed about my openness to following the evidence. I asked for evidence. I was provided with evidence. I followed it.

might I suggest that you work on getting your quoting right? You seem to have misattributed about half of your quotes in your replies to me.

?

Which ones exactly?

[_Pahoran]

And the GWB faith-based initiatives effort

Yeah, I tried to do you a solid by including the only part of the steaming pile incoherent nonsense you dropped on the thread that seemed to have something close to relevance to the matter at hand.

So, according to you, the Church refusing to accept US taxpayers' money when it was on offer is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether it is likely to want to go after Italian taxpayers' money.

I see.

I guess the US-Italian exchange rate must make the lire so much more attractive than the greenback these days. ;)

(You do know they no longer use denarii, right?)

...as soon as a Latter-day Saint comes along, you immediately switch to your other face and start posing as the Earnest Impartial Seeker of TRVTH.

How do you do that?

Nothing changed about my openness to following the evidence. I asked for evidence. I was provided with evidence. I followed it.

And in fairness, I have to give you that. When the evidence does come in, you do accept it. In that, you certainly outperform Scratch.

However, before the evidence comes in, you form a preliminary opinion, presumably based upon (1) your general knowledge of Mormon things, and (2) your general attitude towards the Church of Jesus Christ. These appear, respectively, to be (1) negligible, and (2) Walter Martin-esque.

might I suggest that you work on getting your quoting right? You seem to have misattributed about half of your quotes in your replies to me.

?

Which ones exactly?

Okay, not quite half. In your first reply to me, you attributed two of my quotes to yourself.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Chap]

I guess the US-Italian exchange rate must make the lire so much more attractive than the greenback these days. ;)

(You do know they no longer use denarii, right?)

(You do know they no longer use lire, right? And that the singular of 'lire' is 'lira', right?)

[_Kevin Graham]

'Fat cats' benefit from EU farming subsidies

By Colin Brown, Deputy Political Editor


The Queen and one of the richest men in London, the Duke of Westminster, are among the biggest winners from this year's payment of farm subsidies.

The Duke, who owns most of Mayfair and also Grosvenor Farms Limited, was paid £562,786, while the Duke of Marlborough, a member of the Churchill family, was paid £452,944 in subsidy for the Blenheim Farm Partnership based in Woodstock, Oxfordshire.

One of the largest payments went to the Mormon Church, which has become one of the biggest foreign landowners in English farming following a payment of £1.59m from the reformed Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). The Queen's Sandringham Farms were paid £408,970 in subsidies. Half of the land is let to tenants and the rest is turned over to two studs for her racehorses, forestry and fruit farms which produce apples and juice for the Windsor farm shop.

Labour MPs protested that the money was being paid to so-called "fat cats" who did not need financial support – at the expense of poorer farmers in the Third World who were facing unfair competition from the EU.

The single farm payment scheme was introduced in 2005 as the first stage in a radical reform programme to overhaul the CAP, which takes up 40 per cent of the £76bn EU budget.

But long-term reform is likely to be shelved until 2013 because of strong opposition by the farming lobby in the UK and Germany to capping payments according to size. There have been claims that the Queen and the communists, who want to protect small farms, have united in opposition to cuts in subsidies.

The EU Agriculture Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel is proposing to reduce subsides above €100,000 (£75,0000) by 10 per cent; above €200,000 by 20 per cent; and above €300,000 by 45 per cent. The Commission is also planning to scrap the compulsory practice of "set-aside", whereby farmers have to leave 10 per cent of their land idle, which was introduced in 1988

Figures had to be forced out of the Government in early 2005 under Freedom of Information legislation. Farmers angrily protested when the payments were delayed by the Rural Payments Agency (RPA) but figures were recently released for the end of 2005 by the RPA. They list other farms earning more than £210,000 in subsidies, including the Thurlow Estate owned by the family trust of Lord Vestey, who died last year aged 75. The trust he set up was paid £858,134.

The biggest subsidy went to the Co-op group, which manages 16 estates with a turnover of about £21m. The Co-op owns Britain's biggest commercial farm group, Farmcare Limited, and was paid £2.4m.

The Labour MP Harry Cohen said: "The CAP costs a family of four nearly £11 a week and it is going to fat-cat landowners for no useful purpose. The sooner this system is reformed the better. It is a shocking scandal."

Landed (and loaded)

* The Queen

Owns Sandringham Farms: Half let to tenants; two studs for racehorses. Produces apples for the Windsor farm shop. Paid £408,970 in subsidies

* Mormon Church

Owners of Agreserves Limited, a farm conglomerate. Paid £1.59m

* Duke of Westminster

Owns most of Mayfair, also Grosvenor Farms and Blenheim Farm Partnership. Paid £562,786

* Lord Vestey family trust

Owns Thurlow Estate Farms. Paid £858,134

* Co-op group

Britain's biggest commercial farm group; manages 16 estates with a £21m turnover. Paid £2.4m

So the LDS arm is a foreign non-profit organization milking millions from British tax payers. This is funding that should be going to British farmers who depend on it for their livelihoods. But good thing Pahoran knows how the Church works.

[_Kevin Graham]

The Mormon Church is a corporation, and it will be the first to admit that. As such, it will do what corporations typically do, so there is no surprise that it will take subsidies when offered. Remember, this is the same Church that spent a billion in tithe dollars on a shopping mall. Isn't that what Jesus would do?