Saintmichaeldefendthem1

I'm glad you found the perfect lightbulb to fit your lifestyle. Why make others follow suit? You're exhibiting the same error in logic as Loudmouth Mormon by offering analogies that don't fit. This isn't a protest against laws in general that keep the public safe, it's a protest against laws that micro manage how we live our lives. Telling you how fast you can drive is not the same as telling you what you can eat, wear, what lightbulbs you can use and how many gallons your toilet can flush. That goes both ways. If it's so insignificant, a "freaking LIGHT BULB", then why force everyone to use a certain type. I can't believe that Mormons of all people are so willing to give up hard won freedoms.

Oh, but they have already tried going after your Charmin 2 ply, my learned friend. Check this out... Greens Want To End Plush Toilet Paper | Sweetness & Light

That's not quite how it works. Whether you're talking about the U.N. or NATO, America plays a key leadership role in any coalition. These are boots that are just too big for anyone else to fill.

The truth is, fascism isn't an exact fit anywhere in the American political spectrum. The Germans were National Socialists and many of the strict controls on the means of production were straight out of the Communist Manifesto. I rather draw the lines between government based on the belief in God and one based on atheism. The atheists including Hitler, Lenin, Mao, and Pol Pot were responsible for murdering 120 million people in the 20th century, a scale of bloodshed without precident.

There's a sort of "pick on someone your own size" justice here. Gaddafi was poised to unleash superior weaponry upon civilians and is now having those forces decimated by NATO forces far superior to his.

That was a criticism and you parried with an insult. I was correct in saying your analogy was myopic and demonstrated that claim compellingly. Apparently one of the battles you pick is anytime somebody points out flaws in your reasoning.

Well I don't think it's the worst thing in the world if one dictatorship gets replaced by another. The general worry is that it will get replaced by something worse...something worse than a government that uses tanks and planes against civilians. I don't think this is realistic especially if we stick to our guns. The new Lybian leadership I think will be very cautious about stepping over certain lines.

LM, your reasoning is myopic. No force of law compelled people to give up horse drawn transportation. The problem is, the federal government continues to find new things to sanction. Do you remember when they limited the water capacity of flush toilets so now you need to flush 2 or 3 times to get it down? There is nothing whatsoever in the Commerse Clause of the Constitution that gives the feds the right to micromanage these things. Like I told Mightynancy, it won't be long before they control something you do care about.

Mercury is a nerve toxin and causes incurable nerve damage. Have you seen the gold miners who use mercury to pan for gold? It isn't long before they start to spasm and they will suffer from it for the rest of their lives.

Keep acquiescing to government decisions about the way you live and it won't be long before they sanction something you DO care about. Saavy?

That's one of the many things I hate about those CFL's. They are stress inducing. When you have the same light at home that you had at work, it's hard to transition into relax mode. Incandescent have that soft yellowish glow not unlike the light from hearth, that tells you that you are home.

I'm happy that you found your place in the New World Order. Does that mean everyone else should be forced into it?

Also posted on Bible-Discussion.com It's lights out for traditional light bulbs - USATODAY.com By an extremely misguided and unconstitutional federal law, it will soon be illegal to manufacture and sell incandescent lights. We will be forced to use these hideous, expensive, and dangerous eco-bulbs that can give you mercury poisoning if you accidentally break one. Production of 100 watt incandescent bulbs are scheduled to cease in September in anticipation of the law taking effect next year. By the end of 2014, the ban will effect bulbs down to 40 watts. There are many of us who are buying a lifetime supply of incandescent bulbs starting right now with 100 watt bulbs, the first on the chopping block next January. I'm doing it not only because I find the new CLF's to be hideous, but because I'll do everything in my power to resist government telling me how to run my household and my life. To answer my own question. I'm far from alone in this.

Also posted on Bible-Discussion.com It's Obama's own fault that the message he's trying to get through, that our actions prevented a massacre, is drowned out by the illegal method he used to intervene. But it needs to be said that Gaddafi's forces including tanks and aircraft were surrounding civilian protesters and Gaddafi promised there would be no mercy. I strongly criticized Bill Clinton when he didn't do enough to prevent the slaughter of 800,000 Rwandans. Obama's wrong execution of the right idea is a marked improvement from the slaughter that would have ensued if NATO forces didn't intervene. We're talking about human life here and as a Catholic, I have to rise above politics and applaud the protection of life. I know this action was started sloppily and the end game is uncertain. But timely intervention was called for and it was delivered. Life is precious.

Maybe we could lend them the use of some NATO weapons. I'm sure they would be grateful for the help and wouldn't use those weapons against us in the future.

You trying to get this thread locked too, RB?

RB, one mistake a lot of people make is applying personal piety called for in Scripture to the machinism of the State. The State cannot "turn the other cheek" because it has an obligation to defend its territory and its citizens against attack. It also has an obligation to defend against people against crimes which is why justice imposed by the state in the form of incarcerations and even capital punishment cannot be characterized as an act of revenge. Keeping Scriptural adminishments upon our personal piety separate from the obligations of the law, society, and foreign policy of a nation helps to keep things clear and unconfused.

I opened a thread about the outrageous story of America's largest corporation GE not paying any taxes on their $14 billion U.S. profits and is also the largest exporter of American jobs overseas. I was pointing to the hypocrisy on the Left for not going after THIS corporation that has gotten itself snug with the Obama Administration. Now, in a bid for fairness, I'm posting an update. Former Sen. Russ Feingold and Moveon.org are now calling for GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt to resign. I can no longer say that the Left is giving this story a pass. MoveOn posts - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

Revenge is a touchy topic because it goes right down to the root of us. Those who are quickest to condemn the revenge motive are often unaware of their own inclination to avenge wrongs; and the weirdest thing of it is, sometimes we do so subconsciously because our conscience mind will not permit the payback that our subconscience is determined to see happen. It's seldom that one says, "I deserved that because of what I did to that person, so let's call it quits." Instead, a cycle of revenge is initiated whereby an act of revenge for a previous offense becomes itself cause imperative for another act of revenge. Gangs and family feuds are good examples of cultivating revenge cycles. The thing about revenge is that it's a personal motive that may or may not be superimposed upon a legitimate counter-action. Did Ronald Reagan have revenge in his heart when he ordered strikes on several sites in Lybia? We'll never know, but what he did was necessary for the security of Americans abroad, to give Gaddafi pause to think before bombing another American ship or aircraft. It's a good thing that it happened, regardless of the motive. So where is the dividing line between a legitimate act of reciprocity and Captain Ahab going after the white whale? That's something to think about.

Have you really thought this statement through? Ok so we all agree that the federal government cannot establish an official religion, but did we stop there? Oh no! Now it is the practice of religion in general that has become outlawed in government buildings, schools, pretty much most of your life if you are either a pupil or work for government. But even that wasn't enough. Now laws that have religious motivations are suspect too so we shouldn't even use religion when picking politicians or passing laws. And on and on we go. Miles from what the Founding Fathers intended with the 1st Ammendment, we are now scrubbing all of government clean of any trace of religious influence. You say you don't want government to trample your rights. Well, they already have because we accepted the absurd notion that politics and religion should be separated.

SeekingAdvice, I was driving today and thinking a little more on your situation. You said you wanted to influence your parents and I know that's a hard undertaking since they seem to be intransigent. I think they need to be calmly reminded that if they push their son away and become estranged to him, they will cut off their access to their own future grandchildren. I was listening to Dr. Laura who often makes the point that parents will do whatever it takes to be at peace with their adult children in order to have access to their (cute and adorable!) grandkids. Far from being a threat, this is simply a reality they will face if they continue on this course and perhaps you can help them look a little further down the corridors of time. Maybe that will give them pause to think. In any event, I pray this all works out for everyone involved.

Only an idiot would pretend that politics and religion are not already mixed. The whole conservative movement is motivated by religion and the Left...well, they have a religion too.

You're right that my assessment is based on the information you gave, but let's review that information. You said your brother had felt this way for several years from which I surmised that there was behaviors pushing him away from religion long before the revelation. Your parents reacted in a way that rational people would know defeats the purpose of trying to get your brother back to belief. When people act irrationally over a sustained period of time, it's not a stretch to suggest mental illness may be involved. None of my advice is off-the-cuff. I took a careful look at the facts you presented, thought about it, and gave you my observations. Good. I'm glad you understand that. Then there should be no resistance to exploring this possibility. It's important your brother understand this, that the behavior of his parents do not exemplify the LDS faith. It may be that in his mind this the normal response expected of a Mormon. It's no surprise he said this. He's trying to avoid the conflict that would ensue if he were to cite his parents as the reason he left. From the information you gave, he seems to have no hangups about particular doctrines, so that leaves personal experiences. And if out of all the Mormons in his life, your parents were the ones setting a bad example, it's not hard to figure out they may be the cause for his decision. Nobody has a greater influence on children than their own parents. His responses are intentionally cryptic. Does he fear what he says to you will get back to your parents? I admire your brother's maturity. It seems he is doing everything he can to keep the peace. You feel attacked because you think I am attacking your parents. I am not. You sought advice along the lines of helping you change your parents, and you need to know you can't. They have been like this for years and you're not going to stop them. You bristle at the idea that they may suffer from mental illness, but everything you said points in that direction. This isn't judging your parents, this is an outsider's assessment of your situation. The only unique thing about my advice compared to others who have answered you is that I'm telling you things you don't want to hear. I'm glad it draws your ire because it means you're at least half listening. I hope you'll give this as much thought as I have given to your situation.

Oops! You're right. It's been a few years since I read the book. She got Jem angry and Jem tore up her flower bed in retaliation. Jem didn't understand the episodes, the frothing at the mouth and the nurse ushering him away until after she died and Atticus told Jem about her fight against addiction. Jem relayed his experience to Scout and of course the book is written from Scout's point of view. That's where I got confused. I remember having a cranky old schoolteacher that nobody liked including me. But I got to know her one day and she and I became really good friends. I would often go to her after school to get help with my homework and it turned out she was a really wonderful person after all. Children have a way of characterizing a person as the most horrible, rotten person they ever met. It takes time and experience to understand that people are rarely all that bad once you get to know them.

Keen observation. I look forward to writing more about Mrs. Dubose as well. She was a cranky and disagreeable old woman who sat on her porch everyday with often less than kind words for bypassers. Scout was terrified of her. She was rumored to have a Confederate pistol loaded underneath her lap shawl. But Scout is able to see a different side of her as she tenaciously battled her morphine addiction and died free. Scout was able to help Mrs. Dubose by reading to her as she endured longer and longer intervals before having to inject the drug. This woman didn't see death as her enemy, but rather being mastered by a drug or anything else. She died in a state of peace. This book is full of heroes.