Saintmichaeldefendthem1

This brings to mind the scandal involving a child molesting ring inside the Jehovah Witness church during the 1980's. Though church administrators were aware or the problem, distrust of police, social services, and society in general outside of their cloister was at a pitch. They tried to deal with the problem "in house" and their failure to do so allowed the ring to thrive within the cloister undetected for several years. I'm aware of the difference in scale, this recent incident involving one victim and one perpetrator, but the principle is the same; when a child is abused, it is absolutely irresponsible, and some would say evil, to not immediately bring the offense to light. In the wake of the sex abuse scandals, the Catholic Church in America has reformed its practices to one of no tolerance, and immediate reporting when a case of abuse is discovered. We all need to be on that boat.

Also posted on forum.bible-discussion.com for many guns that end up in the hands of cartel members: WikiLeaks exposes true origins of Mexican cartels' weaponry (Hint: It's not due to the "mythical" - Democratic Underground Guns are being sold by the US to the Mexican governement through official channels for the military and police. Those guns are filtering down to the cartels through corrupt liasons between the Mexican federales and the cartels. The question here is, with President Felipe complaining about US guns ending up in cartel hands, how many of those guns were given to them by their own government?

Did you actually look at the links you posted? The first one lists only median salaries between men and women by industry, which doesn't even begin to tell the real story, and the second one, like the OP I posted, accounted for various situations and factors that impact salaries by gender. Listing median incomes by tax returns (which is where feminists come up with their 77% figure) doesn't account for the mothers who stay at home or have only a part time job to supplement the family income. What's glaringly absent in all this is proof that discrimination exists between equally qualified men and women who apply for higher wage jobs or promotions within their jobs. What's behind all this is the feminist ideology that takes issue with gender roles, particularly the role of the man as the usual bread winner. All throughout the 90's, women have been told that to stay home and raise a family is demeaning and that they ought to pursue a career instead. It is, of course, a hideous lie because being the mother of children and making a home is noble, laudible, back breaking work no less than than the work of any man. The remuneration of home making doesn't translate into monetary salaries, but the rewards are there just the same.

I'm sorry for the situation your wife is in and I hope it gets resolved. I'm sure I don't have to tell you that this is an anecdote only and not an indicator of a general trend as I'm sure others can tell personal experiences of less qualified women getting a position as well. This to say, I hope your viewpoint is not determined only by what is happening to your wife. I view many of these feminist organizations in the same light as the NAACP, unions, and many other advocacy groups that have outlived their usefulness. You'll see Al Sharpton manufacturing issues where none exist, attacking white police officers for the "crime" of defending themselves against a black assailant, etc. The truth is, America is enjoying the closest thing attainable to true parity between sexes and races and our civil rights laws have achieved their desired effect. For these organizations, it's the continuance of the organization which serves as its chief mission. Their relevence having descended into antiquity, they rely creating the impression that eggregious disparities still exist and so they conjure for themselves battles to wage in order to establish their continued importance (and funding). One well established demographic that Lukas alluded to is the higher numbers of females going to college compared to males who are now outnumbered in this regard. When this translates into decisively higher wages for women who will more often qualify for administrative positions, I wonder how these feminist groups will continue to establish the "injustice" toward women in the workplace?

Carrie L. Lukas The Wall Street Journal Independent Women's Forum - There Is No Male-Female Wage Gap

How refreshing to hear the correct accounting of this war! The 11 seceding states had every right to leave the Union, and Lincoln had no Constitutional authority to stop them. Somehow it's lost on today's generation that the federal government was created by the states. I hardly agree with this comparison. Right now, loosely marshalled bands of militia are killing civilians arbitrarily acting on Gaddafi's orders. Any security contractors we hire are still subject to the same rules of engagement as our military and abide by the Geneva Convention. Moreover, these security companies largely consist of military veterans and have, with rare exception, conducted their duties with the utmost professionalism. It's unfair to compare them to murderous thugs. This assessment is also false. Far from being late in the game, our contribution far preceded that of the Soviets who were rebounding after being invaded. By the time Soviet forces began liberating eastern territories, the German army had been routed by allied forces and were in a state of disorganized retreat. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Iraq had the 4th largest military in the world when it decided to seize Kuwait. Regardless, force disparity is the least consideration when going to war, in this case, responding to naked aggression. Are we supposed to reduce our advantages to make it "fair"? It's actually the swift decimation by superior forces that saves lives in the long run by avoiding a costly war of attrition. This is also incorrect. We took down the Soviet Empire through strategic deployments that caused them to bankrupt themselves into a deafening implosion. Would you rather we entered into a more direct confrontation that involved a possible full scale nuclear war? In fact, its our display of strength that has a chilling effect on acts of aggression. We would be living in a very different world, one arift with bloody wars, if the United States didn't walk softly and carry a big stick. Careful there, friend. As much as I'd like to join your criticisms of Obama, he's now officially a candidate and by the rules of LDS.NET cannot be assailed. The indictment of American imperialism is overrehearsed and undersubstantiated. Having allies is not the same as having direct government control over surrounding states. If the United States wanted to be an empire in the historical sense, as the Soviets were, there is little that could stop us. In light of our dominating forces, our restraint from conquering and annexing other nations is unprecidented in all of world history. Saudi Arabia is a sovereign nation that determines its own alliances and economic reciprocities. To call Saudi Arabia a colony is to redefine colonialism from the context of direct military and political control of subaltern states to a definition that illatively considers any smaller nation allied to the United States to be de facto odalisques to the same. President Obama the dictator? Now I'm getting a better picture of your mindset. Your arguments are now waxing absurd. You threw me off by offering an insightful context to the Civil War that escapes most leftists and that seems to put you in the libertarian camp which features a stout isolationist platform. Your contemptuous language in speaking about America makes you sound like another moveon.org dunderhead. You have a skewed understanding of America's contribution to a better world, having been spoonfed a queered version of America's actions that turns hero into villian. The girth of your posts seems intended to dupe people into believing you an intellectual and intimidate them into silence, but I have no problem taking apart your arguments piece by piece.

I'm not a Mormon myself so I can't help you with this. 10% as a hard rule is something I strongly disagree with because of people in your situation. Some people can spare 10% better than others. For instance, I think it's cruel to expect a single mother who can barely afford clothes, shoes, and food for her children on top of paying rent and utilities to give up 10% of her gross salary. You need to approach this decision with eyes wide open. See how the LDS handles situations like yours. Do they offer you opportunities to give in other ways such as volunteering more for the Relief Society? The one thing I agree with the LDS on is not giving a temple recommend for marriage until private debts are resolved because money issues are the biggest source of tension in any marriage. The caffeine prohibition is one of many things that would keep me from ever considering the LDS church. No caffeine may be beneficial to these bright-eyed, bushy-tailed young Mormon missionaries that show up at my doorstep, but as people age, it gets harder and harder to wake up in the morning. This is why throughout the history of man, we middle aged folk have always sought out teas and herbs to help us get our eyes open.

I find your easy trust in the government to be disconcerting. Mercury is a very dangerous substance that causes permanent nerve damage. Speaking with forked tongue, the government bans mercury thermometers because of the danger but then dismisses the same danger as negligeable for the politically correct light bulbs. By all means, if you think the danger is acceptable and you want to risk spending the rest of your life spassing out like Michael J. Fox, then that's your perogative. But this law forces everyone to take that risk. And that's wrong.

I disagree. Much of the media is still ideologically driven to the left. Reporters are keen to the fact that the public seizes upon outright bias, so they resort to more subtle ways to shape public opinion, specifically by shedding light on certain things while ignoring others. In this way, they hope to steer public scrutiny. This story may or may not be an example of this, but the practice of subterfuge journalism is real.

I'm sure there is an intent with the publishing of this story, particularly relating to the recent evolutions in Wisconson. Are we being fed a message that teachers are open season without the all-important unions?

It's hard to fault her for what she did when she was 22. A lot of young women are enticed by the easy money to be had by undraping their most precious asset, their still flowering young bodies. Reading the story, I can't help but think that there is something left out, something that more directly caused her suspension. I've learned when reading articles like this not to trust I'm being given all the facts.

You should read the post again. Political discussions will be allowed as long as neutrality is maintained regarding the endorsing of political candidates as stated here: In any event, I'm sure the gingerbread cookie will be reviewing this discussion soon and rendering her judgement.

Thank you, but I don't think I'm violating any rules. Even if Republicans take both houses, they have to work with Democrats as a minority party. I was referring to those congressional Democrats, not Obama.

I have about as much faith in Congress as I do a Bernie Maddoff investment plan. Even a Republican Congress has to toss the Democrats a few bones, and retaining this law is an easy choice. That's why I'm going for a lifetime supply, carefully bubble-wrapped and stored so that even my senior home will be lit by an incandescent glow.

Was that sarcasm or do you really believe those steps to be easy?

The driving force behind the banning of DDT was the book Silent Spring written by Rachel Carson. As it turns out all the alarming claims in her book were based on specious junk science. The story of DDT is amazing; discovered in the 1950's, it reduced malaria deaths by millions and it is utterly safe. In fact, some people actually bathed in DDT to show how safe it is to people. I wonder how God will judge the millions of lives that could be saved except for the junk science driven hysteria that banned the cure. Public policies are still being made because of the widely debunked myth of the depletion of the ozone layer by man made chemicals. It's global warming today, and "hole in the ozone layer" in the 1980's. The thing about the Left is that when they're wrong, which is often, they move on to the next apocolyptic hysteria and hope nobody notices. Isn't that funny how it's been claimed on this forum that it's just a lightbulb and what am I getting so worked up over, and yet the same people agree with a draconian law that forces everyone to use the politically correct light bulb? Why are they so terrified of people making their own choices?

Incorrect. The "efficiency standards" were designed to eliminate incandescent bulbs just like setting CAFE standards at 100 MPG would eliminate the combustion engine and return us to the buggy age. The efficiency standard is skewed because it doesn't take into account that CFL's produce less light for less electricity and so the savings aren't really savings, it's just a way to make people do with less light.

You mean like contacting government officials and you're assuming that I haven't already? And didn't the OP state precisely what I am doing in response to this law? Your statement makes no sense.

Maybe you're looking for the wrong thing. Hitched trailers of all sorts have to have registered plates and you need to be looking at your state's DMV. Your example cited a trip to one's local grocery market, not a cruise down the interstate. Let's keep the analogy consistant, shall we? BTW, I've seen precisely the senario you describe, people running errands using horses for transportation. Your analogy doesn't fit and that's not a matter of opinion. There was no government cohersion compelling the change from horse drawn to motor transportation, yet there is cohersion to force the public to a different type of light bulb. How is this hard to understand?

That I understand, and I would have no problem with the marketplace offering options to save money, but this isn't going to be an option very shortly. I don't like CFL's because that type of lighting is, in my opinion, stress inducing and not homely, so it's worth paying a little more for the type of lighting I like. Which is why there will always be a market for these types of bulbs, even without government cohersion. Not only has horsedrawn transportation never been outlawed, but hitching posts and watering troffs have been available in many towns and cities all the way up to the 1960's Amish communities are almost exclusively accomodating to equestrians and carriages even today. In no sense has government ever compelled the transition from horses to automobiles. There's a difference between industries dying a natural death due to antiquity and dying an artificial death due to public policy. As long as one's buggy is properly licensed, and they clean up after the horses, there is probably not a town in America where somebody can't hitch up a horse and drive to the grocery store. This is why I've said that your analogy simply doesn't fit.

There has been an effort by Republicans (God bless the GOP!) to introduce legislation rescinding the ban. Unfortunately, I don't think it will gain much traction since there are more pressing issues Congress is dealing with. If certain states like Idaho and Montana enforce their newly passed sovereignty laws, then incandescent lights, as well as many other products, can continue to be manufactured within those states and not be subject to federal regulation. This latest trend of states pushing back is heartening.

Ultimately telling others to "grow up and stop whining" is a self defeating exercise in hypocrisy. We all whine and our levels of maturity constantly fluctuate. Such statements are designed to shut down discussions and are usually said by those who are unwilling or unable to engage the subject at hand.

And that's what this is all about, isn't it? The whole "save electricty, save the earth" is predicated on the myth of global warming, a scam that scientists are abandoning like rats fleeing a sinking ship. So the whole argument rests on a shaky foundation to begin with. In dealing with naturally occuring cyclical climate change, I think it's the height of arrogance to suggest that we can do anything to start or stop it.

You're right. 90% of Lybian oil is sold to Europe. It's just odd to have other countries accused of "blood for oil." Yeah, I saw that dirty, sick, twisted, yet uproariously funny movie too. (I own it)

No, but the most prolific murderers in history have been atheists.