Leaderboard

I heard the deficit spending amendment they want to add would require over 50% of the State legislatures to approve the deficit spending unless we had a declaration of war in effect. The more and more I look at the District of Columbia the more I see it resembles a corrupt banana republic. We have many robbers and thieves sitting in some of the highest seats of authority in this land.

I suspect it was more a chemical (bio-, neuro- or other) change at that point than a structural change, and it affected in both their bodies. But where the message is primarily spiritual, being parents would entail great effort (multiplied "sorrow") and descendants (multiplied "conception" as children become parents generation after generation). The "husband" of course was given the priesthood sealing keys to ensures this happen in the Lord's way.

Sorry. The context was, if you blame Jones for his follower's nutty actions, do you blame Brigham Young for his followers nutty actions? The idea being that it doesn't, necessarily, follow logically that just because nutty followers of someone engage in horrible behavior that the individual they follow is culpable. Or more directly, I'm saying that people harassing and shooting at the Sandy Hook parents is the fault of the people harassing and shooting at the Sandy Hook parents. Obviously it isn't a perfect analogy. It's just the thought I had when Gator stated that Jones' followers' actions meant Jones had no right to claim free speech, or that because his followers did bad things, he has no right to call himself a victim of the press or the government. I'm not saying that Jones is or isn't culpable. I'm just saying that his followers' actions alone aren't proof that he is.

I hear this reaction a lot. But it usually comes from people who believe it would turn into a runaway convention. That's not really possible. The worst case scenario is that they are completely ineffective and get nothing done. There are always two major safeguards in place at such a convention. 1. The purpose and subject matter of the convention must be spelled out prior to the states voting on whether we can even have a convention. Any deviation from those topics cannot be discussed, or if discussed, cannot be a proposed item for final vote. 2. After the convention, any resulting proposals (amendments) must be ratified by 3/4 of the states (38). With the political makeup of the states now, good luck getting anything passed.

Nutshell: In 1858 a corrupt federal judge was run out of Utah on a rail. In response, he told President Buchanan that Utah was in rebellion. For reasons that have never been explained, Buchanan took the report at face value and ordered 1,000 soldiers to Utah. As he didn't send notice of intent, word was brought back by mail riders, and this caused a panic. A wagon train from Missouri was trapped in Iron County because of poor planning on their part, such that they were out of supplies. With a possible war on, no one wanted to sell them anything. That they were from Missouri, land of the Extermination Order, an official state-sanctioned pogrom against the church, didn't help matters any. Several people down in Iron County still remembered the anti-Mormon massacre at Haun's Mill all too well, and when the members of the wagon train started talking smack in an effort to intimidate the locals into just giving them supplies the local militia decided to wax them all and blame the local Native Americans. Brigham Young was so busy trying to tend to the overall effort of keeping the peace that he didn't investigate personally, assuming his order that the church was to leave the wagon train alone would do the job. He knew several top officials in Iron County, so initially took their word as to what happened. The commander of the army was so incompetent that he was quickly herded into a corner and a third party was able to conduct an official investigation, but by then it was already too late.

This is my thinking too, for the most part (except thinking he's a "loon", which I do not.) He was off based with his point of view and approach in the case of Sandy Hook. But to hold him accountable for other's actions this way is problematic for free speech. So, yes, he was off based here...but what about when he's right on something? By setting this precedent it says, you better watch your opinions pretty closely, because if anyone takes your opinion the wrong way you can be liable for tens of millions or more. Yes...Alex Jones is in the mud, and got buried deep enough to start seeing ghosts that weren't there. Ten years ago that was odd. And the fact that he was blind to how odd it is indicates how deeply in the mud he was. But things have changed. We are ALL in the mud now, and getting deeper and deeper all the time. Now everyone who isn't pro baby-murder and trans the kids is a conspiracy theorist. Anyone who doesn't think the election was the safest ever is a straight up nutjob, right? So...how long before the precedent set here starts biting others who aren't as deep in the mud as someone like Alex Jones? It's kind of a bad thing. And I can't really even assess Jones' guilt. The actual context of what he said and when and why is lost. The actual source, the long-form videos where he made his claims, are not available. Instead, we get quotes that are clearly missing context. I'm not suggesting he wasn't off based. But was he as unfair and un-even-handed as is being portrayed? Nothing else he says ever is. To wit: "They're turning the friggin' frogs gay!" - Alex Jones. A par for the course Jones type statement that is ridiculous on the face of it, but in meaning and context is a legitimate issue that's worth serious consideration and understanding. In short, I don't trust what people say about Alex Jones. I've watched enough of him to know that I don't particularly care for his style and approach...but I also have watched enough to know that the media, social commentary, meme-world, etc., lie about him, constantly. Yes, they're half-lies a lot of the time. And yes, he makes it easy for them. But it's still not truth. Take, for example, the headline that Jones' lawyers accidentally turned over his phone texts to the prosecution, thereby catching Jones in lies. It's kind of nonsense. Something sort of akin happened... but the exchange in court was not anywhere near that black and white. There was no perjury proven. There were no objections to the phone records being introduced, etc. etc. It was simply Jones saying, "Yeah, okay. I forgot about that." And a prosecutor using that to try and push the "you're a liar" narrative as much as humanly possible. And the news media report it as, "Jones, the LIAR, gets caught in his LIES...." That's just not true. (Please note: I didn't personally follow this and am reporting what I've heard from others. So if I'm shown to be wrong, I'll own it.) So I legitimately do not know how to feel about his punishment here. He messed up. And some compensation for that mess up is probably fair. But it doesn't strike me they're trying for fair compensation. They're doing as you suggest: Hitting a soft target on the way to the broader target of free speech itself. That part of it is concerning. We see the same thing with all the "conspiracy theories" that have come down the pike in the past few. Pizzagate, etc. So the fact that Clinton's running a child sex-ring in the basement of a pizza parlor is ridiculous means we are meant to believe that nothing of the sort has ever happened? Really? But that's they way it's sold. See, people...Pizzagate is ridiculous. Alex Jones is a liar. 4 Chan's filled with a bunch of trolls. Nothing to see here folks. The government is noble and good. Nothing shady going on. Move on. Most secure election ever!

May or may not apply. May or may not be interesting. But my buddy and I did a podcast on The Recession, if anyone has the time or interest:

Lots of pretty morally crappy people do good things. I wouldn't call them role models, though. Then again, society considers many depraved individuals to be role models.

The Book of Mormon requires us to believe in a massive conspiracy, but it doesn't say enough to make us know for sure who or what are the key players "in the know". And here is the problem with Alex Jones and other conspiracy theorists: their failures end up serving the devil quite well. We all know the image of a tinfoil-hat wearing nut, (and plenty of people deserve the image with all the ridicule it entails)... and it makes people unable to even think about conspiracy or be mindful of it, because they don't want to be like THEM. As such we need to be careful about KNOWING stuff. Keep your testimony simple, about Jesus and his church, and strictly within the bounds the scriptures lay out; and let the rest be speculation. By so doing we won't serve the devil accidentally, like I think Alex Jones has.

I agree with this. As far as I can tell, Alex Jones is a liar who traffics in people's naivete and ignorance. But that view is fueled by media reports. I have never listened to the man, so I can't say with any confidence what the man believes or preaches. I'm not going to take the word of the likes of CNN. As mirkwood pointed out, no believing Latter-day Saint can deny the existence of conspiracies. For that matter, no reasonably intelligent human being with any amount of exposure to human society can deny it. But believing in the general existence of harmful, evil conspiracies and believing in some particular claim of conspiracy are entirely different matters. By its nature, a conspiracy is secret. That's pretty much baked into the definition of the word. Successful conspiracies generally do not become known. If they do, it's because they're old and defunct (e.g. the Great Light Bulb Conspiracy, aka the Phoebus Cartel) or they're so powerful that they don't care about being known (e.g. OPEC). You may have noticed the overlap between conspiracies and cartels. This is not coincidental. Consider this hypothetical: A group of Illuminati-minded people with the money, ambition, connections, and raw power to attempt an invasion of governments worldwide form a conspiracy, what the Book of Mormon calls a "secret combination". If their conspiracy involves too many people, it risks becoming known; everyone who knows about it is a potential liability. So they play their cards close to the vest, with only a few people at the top of the pyramid really knowing what's up. They use puppet actors and corporations to set up their conditions so that it becomes exceedingly difficult to trace their activities back to them. As they grow in power, they gain control of the media and other means of information dissemination, such that they can more directly control what information gets out. How would such a conspiracy ever be discovered? Only one way: A member of the conspiracy would have to betray the secret and make it public knowledge. But such a person would not be believed without evidence, and of course that evidence would be quickly covered up by the conspiracy members. Any information that made it out would be dealt with by the media and governmental elements controlled by the conspiracy. The only other way such a conspiracy could be uncovered is by a mole making his way in, collecting information, and then exposing the conspiracy. This becomes more and more unlikely the longer the conspiracy remains and continues consolidating its power. Such a mole would never make it to the courts. He would be dealt with, by which I mean he would be disposed of. Sound familiar? Of course it does. It's mobocracy. It's the Cosa Nostra. It's evil people with wicked intent to gain power and money. Such has it always been. Given the secretive nature of such conspiracies, is it any wonder that Jeffrey Epstein's supposed (and very convenient) suicide is greeted with rolled eyes and doubt? If it looks, acts, and smells like conspiracy, isn't that evidence? But of course, without truly damning evidence, the majority won't believe such a thing. It's far too easy to make up some conspiratorial explanation. In any case, such evidence is unlikely to be found. Why do you suppose that Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, and other men (including men not named Bill, e.g. the UK's Prince Andrew) involved with Epstein have not been connected to him in more than a cursory manner? Are we to believe that all of these rich and powerful men with known attachments to illicit sex were simply at the wrong place at the wrong time and are innocent bystanders? I believe few of the conspiracy allegations I hear, but I absolutely believe that such conspiracies exist, even deeper and more evil than the Illuminati conspiracy theorists would have us believe. There are one or two members of this forum who disbelieve that people are ever bad, but I am among those who disagree. People have a deep capacity for evil if they choose to exercise it. Many have no qualms whatsoever about selling their fellow men into slavery, destroying liberty, and so forth, as long as they get the power and/or money and/or sex they crave. In such a world, conspiracies are a sure thing.

Any LDS member who dismisses the idea of conspiracies is ignorant of their own doctrines.

I'd love to have a constitutional convention. It would be a perfect time to have one. Because the CC runs off of 75% of the states agreeing, not by population. We're around 50/50 red v blue these days. So no matter what someone wants to do, they'll need to convince half of the other team to ratify it. Please have one quickly, and do the following: - Term limits on all federal offices. - Forced balance budget, no more deficits. I think the first one is totally doable, the 2nd one possible. If they wanna define gender, or cap govt salaries, or simplify the tax code to stop endless tinkering for political reasons, or cut federal power in various ways while they're at it, I wouldn't mind.

@The Folk Prophet-if I really had that much sway and influence I’d spend my time convincing people that the movie Waterworld is an underrated classic.

You told me on Facebook that you love Nickleback. NickELback. Get the name of my all-time fave group right, mocking infidels.

You told me on Facebook that you love Nickleback.