LittleWyvern

There's a league of difference between nominating and appointing. The senate could always throw the nominations on the floor until they get a judge they like. And since senators are chosen by direct election, the people are closer to the bench than you think. Theoretically, if there's an "activist judge" it's because most of the senators liked whatever he/she wanted to try to do. The senators aren't stupid: they want to be reelected just as much as any political officer does.

Uh... not only does "Team Obama" not appoint judges, but they'd need corrupt more than one of them.

Yeah, that's unconstitutional. Somebody would probably file a lawsuit and win very easily if somebody tried to do that.

I'm assuming you mean the law Congress passed that put a tax on bonuses. This law can only go into effect after the law was signed, it cannot tax bonuses that were made before this law was signed.

trulykiwi: Your story assumes that everybody who has ever gotten into a bad financial situation did so of their own choosing. This is too obviously not true to argue here. And... retroactive laws are strictly prohibited by the Constitution, in case you forgot.

I'm not discrediting him, just pointing out that the revelation he received was unique for the time that he lived in. Perhaps during his time, when polygamy was allowed, it was required for exaltation (although this still is debatable). Now that polygamy is expressedly forbidden by current prophets, whose revelation is unique for our time right now, it makes no sense that polygamy is required for exaltation. Generally, when the teachings of current and past prophets seem to conflict, go with the teachings of the more modern prophet, as these teachings are most likely based on the most up-to-date revelation.

If it was required for exaltation we would be allowed to do it. Try studying the words of more modern prophets on the issue instead.

I think the same concept still applies. If Microsoft offers Cloud database space for Silverlight projects, then really anybody (who pays for it) can make something that can be hosted there. It's still kinda like refusing to maintain a golf course because some GLBT person played on it. Just because you maintain a space, doesn't mean that you are held accountable for the actions of the people who use it.

Getting angry at Microsoft because somebody decided to use Silverlight like this is like getting mad at Adobe because somebody decided to make Flash porn. Sliverlight and Flash are just tools... on a most basic level, just programming languages, and neither you nor Microsoft nor Adobe can be held responsible for their uses. I wouldn't worry about it. :)

I made my post clickable for a reason.

Daifukumochi

lol, push polls. I can't help but chuckle at this.

Yeah, I'm sure Margin of Error can explain the... er... mathematics behind the margin of error. ...that was weird.

You don't even have to think about climate change if you want to. I think the main idea is to get people thinking about the amount of resources they use, and whether or not they can use less. Using less resources is a good thing no matter what your opinion on climate change is.

The demographics are a random sample of all of Utah. Admittedly, I'm just inferring this as the title of the article says "Utahns" with no qualifiers (perhaps somebody less lazy than me could contact Dan Jones). There was another poll mentioned in the article that just polled Salt Lake County and got a 60% approval rating, with a MoE of 5%. It's in the article: Again with that only word.

I don't think the point of this event was necessarily to make a big change, but to get people thinking.

So, why then is this act of environmentalism tainted (or crazy, or a scam) in your opinion, simply because the original intent was for climate change? There's a lot of ways that the environment needs help, and a lot of ways the environment will be helped by this Earth Hour event even if you don't think climate change is happening.

Must one believe in climate change to be an environmentalist? Again, so what if the underlying motive is in response to "climate change?" It's a wrong assumption imo that this means one cannot participate in an event like this if they think climate change is a scam. You can do good things for the environment no matter what you think of climate change.

So why, then, do you think turning off your lights for an hour is bad?

The antis? I think some people on this thread are doing a good enough job on that tbh. Honestly, even if you think global climate change is a scam, doing good things for the environment is still noble. I think too many people here who read this knee-jerked at the phrase "climate change."

You're right, the numbers I posted earlier were slightly out of date. I have since found a better list, which takes the average of every poll and gives a number of 58.2% Still, the fact that Utah is close to the national average is impressive.

According to the SLT article, only the highlighting temple lights are going off. The streetlights are more than likely going to stay on.

Why do you feel this is wrong?

According to the latest polls the number hovers around 68%. But lower numbers are to be expected in red states, and higher numbers are to be expected in blue states.

ArticleI think this is a great idea. You can find out more about Earth Hour over here. :)