Kevin

The Eighties were the best!! Anything from the following: Tears for Fears Howard Jones Alan Parsons Project Chicago Pet Shop Boys Billy Idol Lindsy Buckingham The Buggles (Video Killed the Radio Star) Annie Lennox Ah-ha B-52s Dream Academy Duran Duran Men at Work New Order The Nylons Rush Modern English Psychedelic Furrs They Might be Giants Oingo Boingo OMD Thompson Twins U2 Van Halen

Such a belief is not inconsistent with LDS doctrine to the extent those sincere religious believers did not have a chance to hear and accept the gospel of Jesus Christ prior to their death. If they did have such a chance and chose not to take it then they will not have another chance after this life. Fortunately, God is the one who determines what constitutes a chance.

I wish I had had enough fortitude to have taken that approach, It may have saved my marriage. I went with the nagging and belittling...not a good idea, I learned the hard way. It might have made a difference but your Ex is still accountable for his own actions.

I home taught a family for about 4 years where both the husband and wife were inactive. I invited them to go to church a couple of times and the wife decided to accept and began attending with their two daughters. A couple years later the husband started going and became very faithful. He and I were talking about a few months ago and we got onto the topic of what helped him come back. He said that it was his wife and the complete lack of her saying anything to him about coming to church. She asked him to come initially and when he refused she let him do what he wanted. At first, he was glad to be able to have the house to himself or to go golfing but after a while he noticed his wife and kids being happy and enjoying church. He, at times began to feel a little guilty because he knew that was where he was supposed to be. Eventually he just started coming again. Perhaps this would be a good approach with you and your husband. Let him know once that you know that's where he is supposed to be and then don't mention it again.

I'm still here. Been swamped at work so leisure reading and posting has diminished. Thanks for thinking of me!!

Cal, your statement is not correct. We are told that ordinances such as baptism ad temple ordinances are the way in which we make covenants with God. It is the keeping of those covenants which brings blessings from God. NOT the ordinances themselves.

I've seen the clip before. I was not impressed. In fact I was disappointed. I would personally never do something like that. That said, the fact the Bush did do so doesn't make me think a great deal less of him. I still have a very high opinion of him even though, at that moment, he was setting a poor example. I've also made mistakes but that doesn't make be a terrible person.

You are correct, its not the government's fault. Such an attitude is to be expected by those with socialist leanings, however. In socialism, healthcare is provided by the government - not a free market. Those who complain that the American government is at fault for failures in the healthcare system don't understand the differences between a free market and socialistic medicine.

"We all know..."Interesting. I don't know this. How exactly do you know this?

Riiiiiiiight. Because, as we all know, anybody who is "so bad and feared" must always be right. Just like Hitler and the SS. Those Jews should have tried harder to understand Hitler and his vision.Brilliant logic there disruptive.

What do you mean it "need not be defended on any supposed health benefit is supposedly confers?"

We're a family church. As such, families often attend church together. Yes, we should try to maintain a reverent atmosphere but, a little tolerance and increased attention may help us focus better on the purposes of sacrament meeting - taking the sacrament and learning the gospel. If somebody doesn't take their crying child out we'd be better off to increase our focus on what the speaker is saying as opposed to getting upset.

Pansies.

Reminds me of John Kerry - complains that jobs are being out-sourced or lost out-of-country yet complains that we should be importing Canadian drugs and demands that we continue to outsource our oil needs to our sworn enemies. Ironic indeed.Now, back to your regular programming.

Jack, the above is correct. Your ward membership clerk can give you your membership number.

That's an interesting take. You're now breaking it down into the degree to which Bush should have represented the threat. Seems a bit too subjective to be calling a person a liar based upon such a conclusion. Do you think that Bush overstated the threat based upon the information he had at the time? Did he overstate the intelligence that he and John Kerry and the rest of congress relied upon? If so, why not share with us the data upon which you make such a comparison?

You may finde the following link interesting. It appears that Nader should not have really been on the ballot in Pennsylvania. It seems that some of his people are getting involved in a little voter fraud. I've often wondered what draw Nader could possibly have on Democrats. Perhaps this has something to do with it.http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2...13/165241.shtml

Is that really your response? I ask for evidence of your claim and you somehow transition into a strawman concerning WMDs? Ahh, I get it. What you really mean to say is that Bush actually knew that the intelligence reports that he and congress relied upon to make the decision to go to war were actually wrong when he took us to war. You have a lot to learn about logic my friend. You see, the person who makes the assertion is the one who has to provide evidence that that assertion is correct. Turning your claim back to me in the form of a question is hardly evidence. Fully funded? Ok Helgaboy, please tell me how many dollars would constitute a fully funded "leave no child behind" and then tell me how many dollars have flowed into that plan. Go ahead, its your claim so support it. The opinion of your Republican senator is irrelevant unless it actually addresses a comparison of fully funded to actually funded. Yes, I believe Bush is an honest man. However, it is your credibility which diminishes when you choose to ignore requests to provide evidence of your claims.

Sad indeed. What's even more sad is that there are those who will complain about the system yet they are unwilling to get involved in the process and expend any effort to help change things. You know, efforts that would include things like voting.

Your comments are nothing that baseless assertions. Care to provide any proof of Bush's lies or do you just expect us to take your word for it? Put up or lose your credibility (if you have any).

Shan, I understand you don't want to argue but do you mind a little discussion? IF you're pro-gay marriage then Kerry is your man as far as that goes. You mentioned that you're not for the rich men in ties or tax cuts for big business. There's an interesting tax system in our country that in my experience as a CPA, very very few Americans understand. The system is one where those who make more money pay a progressively higher tax rate on their taxable income - its called a graduated tax. For example, the lowest tax bracket is 10%. Those with taxable income from 0$ to $14,000 (2003 tax year) pay 10% or $1,400. Thoes with taxable income from $14,001 to $56,800 pay 15% on that amount or $6,420 plus the prior $1,400 for a total of $7,820. These are referred to as the 10% and 15% tax brackets. The effective tax rate for those in the lower bracket is 10% while the effective tax rate for those in the next higher bracket is 13.77%. This description can be taken out through the remaining tax brackets of 25%, 28%, 33% and 35%. Those who reach the 35% tax bracket will pay a minimum effective tax rate on their taxable income of 27.05%. Prior to Bush's recent tax reductions the top bracket was 39.6% of taxable income. Here's my question to you and anyone else: How exactly is this fair? Why is it that the government has the right to charge those who earn/make more money, more taxes? How is that just? Why should I, who by my own perserverence and hard work and who by attending college and extensive training has been able to earn well, should then have to pay more taxes than somebody else who chooses to go another route making less money? If we are a capitalistic/free country and all men are created equal then we should be taxed fairly as well. Our current tax system is extremely socialistic -it is taking from the rich to give to the poor or, in other words, its the government forcing the rich to give to the poor instead of men having the freedom to choose. The BIG LIE is when a jackass like Kerry comes along and says that all Bush wants to do is cut taxes on just the rich. It is a bold-faced lie. The graduated tax was cut at every bracket with the lower bracket receiving the largest cut - it went from 15% to 10%. The "rich" received a cut of 4.6% or those who were in the 39.6% bracket. There is nothing wrong with lowering taxes on those who contribute more to society in terms of economic production. The fact of the matter is such lowering of taxes does spur economic growth. As for your comment about Bush not admitting to having not done anything incorrectly, I think you are mistaken. I've heard him on more than one occasion admit that he's made mistakes - he just doesn't admit to making the mistakes the Dems think he did so it doesn't get as much coverage. Outsourcing: Its really disengenuous of the Dems to blame outsourcing on Bush. Outsourcing has been steadily increasing for many many years. I remember studying the trends while getting my mba in the early 90s (Clinton's time). Outsourcing increased probably more than any other time under Clinton. While it sucks that your husband lost his job because of outsourcing, its going to continue, especially in the wake of 9/11 crippled economy. Business trying to stay alive will look for ways to decrease their costs and with wages being one of the largest financial burdens, depending on the industry, it only makes sense that they'd look for less expensive labor. Funny thing is that Kerry himself prefers outsourcing at least when it comes to oil. He's more interested in Arab oil than American oil. He prefers that we remain dependent on many of our enemies for our oil instead of mining that that we already have and reducing our independence on others. Here's a quote from a friend at a message board I frequent that you may find interesting.

Just a little light diversion, kind of like the Iraq war. Right, just a nuisance. Kinda like 9/11. Just another nuisance.

John Kerry wasn't Superman, and it was his promise. I know. For the record, I can't stand either Bush or Kerry (nor their running mates). I'm still not sure who I'm voting for, if you can believe that! I'm still trying to sort out who is the lesser of the evils! Shan, In my mind the difference between the two presidential candidates is clear. Bush is clearly the more conservative of the two. He is against abortion, gun control, government run health care and he is for small government, less taxes and capitalism. As one who believes in capitalism, Bush is interested in stimulating the economy by letting people determine how they spend their money and making sure that they have more of it to spend by taxing them less. Kerry is for abortion, gun control, government run health care. He is very socialist in that he believes the government should do more for the American people and that the American people should be taxed to pay for these things. He favors and promotes inequality among classes in that he believes the rich should have to pay a greater percentage of their income in taxes. Kerry, according to his congressional voting record, is the most liberal senator in America. He is trying to appear to be more of a centrist or conservative democrat but his record exposes his attempts for what they are - political opportunism / flip-floping. I surely hope you will support Bush. We do not need an amoral, liberal socialist as our President.

My mistake. The Bushes' 2001 tax return (on which my source was based) actually states their income as $711,000, of which they paid $250,000 in taxes. Was that gross income? Must have been. That's an effective tax rate of 35.16%. Ouch!!!

Helga, Might I suggest you read the column titled "Kerry Wants Everything Both Ways" which will be posted at the following link tomorrow. It may help you clear up some obvious misunderstandings you have. http://www.newsmax.com/pundits/Farrell.shtml