Vort

It is my considered opinion that truly profound doctrine almost exclusively focuses on one or more of four topics: 1. Faith 2. Repentance 3. Baptism 4. Reception of the Holy Ghost The only modification I might make to the above declaration is reconsidering the use of the word "almost".

We can only hope. I find myself literally laughing out loud at the Democrat/Leftist cries from women (womyn? Uterused people?) talking about 4B! No sex with men! Permanent birth control! Get sterilized! By all means, do so. That will show us. Then we'll be sorry.

Leftist antigun playbook: 1. Insist on draconian measures to spare the children. Refer to them as common-sense laws. 2. Demonize anyone who disagrees with you. Respond that they want the children to be killed, or at least that they don't care enough to save the children. 3. When it becomes clear that your draconian measures can't (yet) pass, agree to "compromise" in that you only demand that, say, half of your "common-sense" measures be made into law. 4. Never, ever, ever, EVER, under ANY circumstance, agree to a withdrawal of antigun legislation. Because that would be regressive, and children would die. 5. Rinse and repeat, paying special attention to #4. The Democrats have indeed tried, time and again, to pass legislation contrary to the Second Amendment. If the Dems had their way, the guns would be gone (at least from the homes of law-abiding citizens). The Democrats are not waiting; they just have not (yet) been successful in their efforts.

I don't think anyone here argues that point. But it's not a parallel with transsexualism fad (or the anti-anti-transsexualism fad, as the case may be).

The point is that your job should not be at stake. That's immoral, far more immoral than calling a man a man, even when he's pretending to be a woman.

You're putting words in my mouth. I said it was not an insurrection; I didn't say it was a PTA picnic. Oh, I'm not unbothered. That was disorderly conduct for sure, and presented at least the appearance of danger. (I think it was more than just the appearance of danger. I think there was a real threat, and I think we're lucky things didn't go much more drastically south.) I have no problem having such drunken idiots and fools locked up and charged with disorderly conduct. I have a lot more problem with them being charged for insurrection, which is beyond the pale. I have a whole lot of problem with leftists pretending that Donald Trump (a) staged the event, (b) encouraged the event, and/or (c) refused to try to ameliorate the event. Seriously? You haven't noticed that what you call the "Religious Right" has not been a major player in Republican circles for at least 20 years now? How can you possibly be surprised by what has been stupefyingly obvious for decades? This is not merely wrong, PP. It's dishonest. You must know full well that this is a complete misdirection. Us guys? So you think I'm a Republican, then? Interesting. Yes, I have noticed the same. Perhaps we would both do well to engage in better activities than squabbling on a discussion forum. I take that advice to heart, for a while at least, but keep coming back. As Robert Plant famously crooned, "I can't quit you, babe."

I thought I was being rather clever and insightful when, years ago, I came up with the model of the man as "outward-facing" and the woman as "inward-facing". In retrospect, I guess I was just giving vocal shape to an idea as old as time.

We will be spending Christmas at my son's house in Kansas, with the whole family there other than our youngest missionary in Japan. I'm hoping to see a tornado. What's that? They don't have tornadoes in December? Then I'm not going.

As Elder McConkie once famously observed, "Job is for people who like the book of Job."

The fact that the Lord mentioned Job and his trials when counseling Joseph Smith (D&C 121:10) might suggest that Job was a historical figure. If not for that, I would assume that the story of Job was either an entirely fictional parable with some extended, rambling philosophy attached, or at least that it was a stylized and highly embroidered retelling of an actual kernel event with some extended, rambling philosophy attached.

The tribe of Asher meets second hour on the stage. Please use the metal folding chairs, not the Relief Society chairs.

To assume that the Father, the Greatest of all, Creator of the universe and all things therein, might become so blinded by rage because one of His children referred to His Consort by a nasty name that He might bring down absolute destruction upon their heads, is so absurd (and frankly bizarre) that I'm not even sure how to respond to such utter nonsense. I guess I'll write a response detailing how the idea is so bizarre and nonsensical that I can't think of how to respond. Yeah, that should do it. I'll give that a shot.

What you say might be true insofar as we understand how things work—I happen to agree with the gist of what you wrote—but I think the expression of those ideas is completely wrong-headed. This is the kind of thing that causes other Christians to look askance at the Church and think of us as cultists. Not that I give much mind to what other demoninations think of us, unless we're giving them good reason to question our devotion, which in this case I think we are. "God" is not a position one fills by qualifying through a checklist of requirements. God is a divine Being, Father of all, Creator of all. We reverence His name and speak of Him only in holy contexts. Disputing about whether Jesus was or was not married based on a list of sine qua nons for Godhood is exactly the opposite of what we should be doing.

Hmmmm. Vote for a guy who committed adultery for cheap thrills (basically 98% of everyone in DC) or vote for someone who lies about her ancestry expressly for political gain. Tough, tough call. Oh, wait. No, it's not. Bull crap. The liars in the media, along with the liar AOC, claimed ten dead. In fact, four people died, all Trump supporters. Two died from heart failure. One died from drug misusage/overdose. One died from being shot by Capitol police while trying to enter through a window, an event that I remember exactly zero conservatives or Republicans decrying. Your narrative of an "angry mob" seeking to overthrow the Constitution is a lie. The fact that the lie is promulgated by mainstream media doesn't make it any truer. Pointing this out just in case objective truth is important to you. Have you ever stopped to consider why you will "take the fake Indian"—or for that matter anyone else—over Trump? You're an atheist, so adultery per se can be of no moral consequence to someone like you. Yet you cite that as a motivating factor behind your blind hatred of Trump. You should go someplace quiet for a few days and look into your soul (or the atheist equivalent thereof) to find out why you jump so willingly onto the antiTrump bandwagon. (Spoiler: I suspect it has little to do with sexual morality, personal liberty, or national security, and everything to do with a social agenda you want to further.)

Vintage leftist viewpoint. SMH.

Let's see. That's the one who tried to gain votes by pretending that she was part American Indian, right?

I don't think so. From what I've seen, there's no embarrassment or any sign of self-awareness at all.

Dorky Nebbish Faces Existential Dread -Summary of every Woody Allen movie

With Woody Allen? Impossible!

*sigh* I used to be a 29 waist. That was back in high school, when I weighed 165. They were definitely not the good old days, but I wouldn't mind borrowing my 18-year-old self for a few weeks.

Does impeachment in Korea necessarily mean a removal from office?

Funny thing about the rare earths is that they aren't really all that rare, at least as far as their abundance in the earth's crust goes. Rather, they're difficult to refine using traditional methods. Chemically, the rare earths are the lanthanides, the upper line of the two lines of elements you often find included at the bottom of a chart of the periodic table. In addition, scandium and yttrium are usually included as rare earths, because they're chemically similar. (Scandium is a lightweight metal, the first of the so-called transition metals, just heavier than calcium and just lighter than titanium. Yttrium is the element in the same "family" as scandium, but one heavier; that is, one line below scandium.) Why are the not-particularly-rare rare earths so valuable? It turns out that these elements just happen to have a lot of valuable properties between them. Cerium and yttrium are valuable for optical properties and polishing. Lanthanum turns out to be very useful in various metal hydride batteries. A great example is the superstrong permanent magnets that have become widely available since around the early 1990s are made primarily of neodymium as well as praseodymium and dysprosium to improve performance. As for the distinction between rare earth minerals vs. rare earth elements or metals, I don't believe there is a functional difference in meaning. If Trump wants to protect domestic sources of rare earth minerals, he probably is not going to be thrilled about openly giving away or selling the refined forms of the elements (which are metals). I actually think such protectionism is a wise idea; I have been shocked that it has taken China as long as it has to clamp down on exporting rare earths and other such things.

Agreed. We don't want to get into a, um, urination match with China. Dealings with China, whether economic or military, should in every case be based on solid principles and should be entered into only with full expectation of doing whatever it takes to make the effort work. Trade war? If that's what you really think is best, then go for it. But you had better not back down or get weak-willed about it. You had better get all your allied nations involved. You have to be willing to walk the walk. That's probably true in any case, but it's doubly true with China.

The short of it is: If one is from the Han people, ethnically and culturally, then you are approximately correct. As long as you do what you're "supposed" to do (according to Chinese custom), you'll probably be okay. If one is not ethnically and culturally Han, then no such protection is guaranteed. If you are not Chinese, your supposed "rights" are completely at the whim of the CCP and its operatives, which generally means that you lose. Chinese courts, for example, pretty much always side with the Chinese side in any dispute, no matter how obvious the deception or IP theft on the part of the Chinese company.

Chinese "law" is a funny (read: deeply corrupt) thing. If you think US laws are applied haphazardly and with prejudice, you ain't seen nothing until you've seen Chinese law.