yjacket
-
Posts
1743 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by yjacket
-
-
This is what the feminist want. To be just like men.
The article was from last year, I don't think anything got passed to become law.
-
4 hours ago, Fether said:
I think they are very helpful actually. Mostly in the sense of buying homes or a needed vehicle. It would be nearly impossible to buy either of those early on life (early as in college and the few years after.
I put everything that I can on the credit card and then pay it off each month. The major reason I do this is for security. All major credit cards have anti-fraud mechanism. You order something from amazon and it get shipped broken-you can fight with the company or just file a claim with the CC and let the CC fight for you. That is very beneficial; or you rent a car and it gets trashed, most credit cards come with automatic insurance on rentals. Or someone steals you CC number b/c you've put it into a hacked website, CC company protects you . . .good luck on getting the bank to reimburse you 10k b/c your debit card got hacked and they sucked money out of the ATM. Plus the rewards help too.
That said, be very leery of credit and debt; it is one thing that we do not teach our children enough growing up, how to manage finances. I understand that the way the world is set up that you think you need debt for buying a home or a car. I bought my 1st home with cold-hard cash . . .and my second home with cold hard cash. The first 6 years we were married, we rented the cheapest dive we could just barely stand to live in. I saved everything at least 50% of my take-home went to savings.
It was hard, it was rough, I wouldn't want to do it again-but man the pay-off was beautiful! My first house was the cheapest thing that I could buy with cash that the family could live in (like renting)-I bought the house at an auction. Then I took the money that was going to rent or a mortgage payment and socked that away for cash. And boy, now I could really save up money. 3 years later, I bought a better house for twice the price of the first house . . .cash. Now the second house isn't where I ultimately want to be and I'm doing the same exact thing.
I did it 8 years ago . . .so it's definitely possible, but very, very hard. The best thing in the world is debt free. With no mortgage payment, car payments, etc. you can easily live on 2k a month; that's what a ~30k job. So if life gets very rough you all you have to do is worry about putting food on the table rather than wondering where you are going to live. You extract yourself from being a debt-slave.
And that is exactly how our entire monetary system is set up . . .every dollar in existence came to be b/c it was loaned into existence; the financial industry is set up to make money off the backs of debt-slaves.
The problem you might have and trust me the sooner you get this out of your mind the better you will be; is that within a few years after starting out you should be able to afford the nice house, nice cars, nice vacations, etc. Buying a house in your early-mid 20s is not too smart-the biggest asset you've got when you are young is the ability to move. Especially if you finance the purchase. You don't even scratch the surface of paying down debt in the first 5 years. Unless you plan on living in a house for 30 years, a 30 year mortgage is absolutely stupid and the only way it works is through the magic of inflation. The first 5 years is something like 90% of the payments interest payments-so you either pay rent money to a landlord or you pay rent money to the bank; unless you are in a period where housing inflation is very high it is likely that you will actually lose money when you sell. And my guess is that right now we are in an echo-bubble boom in housing and we will see a downturn pretty soon.
Finding out what work is all about, where you want to live for a while, etc. that can take some time; and the worst thing you can do is tie yourself down to a house when you are young and don't have a whole lot of possessions. Being able to put everything you own in a 14' rental truck is beautiful for mobility. You don't like the job, find another one, don't like the area, find another place. When you have a house, you start calculating well now I have to sell it or rent it plus it will take 2 full size tractor trailers to move everything.
My parents had beater cars until they were at least in their mid 30s, they lived in small houses until at least their mid 30s. I had crappy beaters cars 10 years after college (still do), I've lived in crappy places. You can't get everything you want in life . . .but you have a lifetime to try and earn it. If you want a big house-awesome, just realize that it takes a lot of hard work to obtain it-and it doesn't come within 1-2 years . . .it takes decades to get it.
I try to live my life by the saying "Live life beneath your means so that one day you can live life above your means".
-
36 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:
It's a strange thing to me.....
I understand. I guess the only reason I drew it out was to make the distinction that violence by it's very nature leaves physical evidence. The left claims that there is a "rape culture" on college campuses. That may be the case, but if it is the case then their should be quite a bit of women on campuses walking around that have physical evidence of rape-bruises etc. But as far as I know, that is definitely not the case.
What you do have is a very pervasive "hook-up" culture where people get drunk, do drugs and have sex, and then in some cases afterwards the woman claims she was taken advantage of or raped. IMO these false claims of rape do more harm to the actual seriousness and notion rape. I have sympathy for the "date rape drug" victims. But again, people need to take responsibility for their actions. While you can't control if someone slips it into your drink-you can control your environment (don't drink alcohol from strangers, don't leave your drinks alone, double date until you are ready to be very serious with someone). And this is my big beef in these instances, how do you prove it? "I didn't have anything and the next thing I knew I woke up next to John" and John will say "well she got a little tipsy". It turns into a he said, she said and unless there is some actual physical proof vs. words if I were on a jury I couldn't convict.
But in today's society, pointing out the obvious such as take responsibility for your actions, turns into a "you're blaming the victim!!" meltdown. No, just that a lot of crimes that happen are crimes of opportunity-like JAG said, "she was there, I wanted sex". If you are aware of your surroundings, then you will be much more able to detect when you are in a bad situation. And many times an entire crime will be avoided.
- Vort, The Folk Prophet and beefche
-
3
-
2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:
It just strikes me as an untruth. The act requires a certain level of violence (because it is "force"), but the implication that it is an act of violence comes across that it's more motivated by violence. That's the part I don't believe. So really it's probably just semantics.
Got ya. I definitely agree with what you are saying; I do think it is semantics.
-
-
2 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:
Doctrine and Covenants 64:10 I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men.
I crashed headlong into this scripture 20+ years ago. On the very subject of rape, actually.
I totally get both of your opinions about such things. Learning to forgive these guys has been one of the top five hardest things I've ever done in my life. Just remember - according to God, if you can't see yourself standing in His presence in the Celestial kingdom next to someone who had committed rape, then you won't need to worry about that situation ever occurring, because the celestial kingdom won't be your kingdom.
I, very fortunately, have not had someone close to me subject to this and yes if it did happen I would eventually forgive (it would probably take a while though). I have learned holding onto hate for an individual does more damage to the soul than the individual could have ever done so I refuse to be damaged twice.
That said, the demands of justice must be paid-both temporally and spiritually. For an individual to receive forgiveness from God for serious sins, a whole change of heart must occur and there is a price to be paid for that. For the penitent that change of heart will require lots of suffering, from which only Christ can save us. There are some sins that require not just a spiritual demand but a temporal demand and rape is one of those.
The beauty of the Atonement is that in the Celestial Kingdom while I might be next to someone who has committed rape, they are not a rapists-in other words at that point in time they will be a completely different person. They will have changed so much that what they have done previous will be irrelevant, b/c they are in effect two different people-one who committed such horrible crime in the past and then someone who would never dream of doing such a thing.
While I wouldn't really be in favor of castration, I say it to mean that rape is a very, very serious crime, I would say close to murder. As such the gravity of the punishment and the gravity of the accusation should be made clear. And that accusation shouldn't be one of "well 4 days later I realized having sex with this dude was a bad idea, so now I'm going to the police to get back at this guy b/c I caught him with my best friend" or some other crap. And yes, I have seen plenty of evidence of this in newspaper reports and the supposed "rape culture" on college campuses.
Rape culture, really? Women are getting smacked around violently as men have their way with them on college campuses? I don't think so. Does it happen, yes, but is there a "rape culture"- I highly doubt it and if there really is-then we are much, much worse off as a culture than I thought.
If a woman gets raped, then it is a crime of violence and as such, there better be physical evidence of the violence not a "he said, she said" affair.
-
I'm of the opinion that a rapist should be harshly penalized (castration comes to mind). But I'm really leery of the modern definition of rape. If a woman says no at any point and the man doesn't immediately comply it can be rape. There is a saying where I served my mission, "don't heat up the pot, if you're not going to drink tea".
Much of modern rape cases comes down to he said she said (and we are told to always trust the victim)-which IMO is a really crappy standard to put someone in jail over. The saying, "hell, hath no furry like a woman scorned" comes to mind. IMO, if a woman has been raped, report it to the police within 24 hours, they take a rape kit and document the physical evidence. Otherwise, shut up. A victim of a crime has obligations if they want to be taken seriously. Nobody has their house robbed and then reports they were robbed months later.
Rather than saying "we need to trust the victim", we need to teach women to immediately report a rape, that if someone is raping you, you should fight back, and you better have a really good reason why you didn't ("he had a gun or a knife, that looked like this"). If there is no physical evidence of rape (bruising, etc.) and you just say well we were in the middle of it and I told him to stop and he didn't-sorry I don't have any belief that you were truly raped. You knew what you were getting into when you invited him into the house (he knew it too), you knew what you were doing when you started "warming up the pot". If you decide to stop before doing the deed and he doesn't stop, slap him and if he keeps going fight him and now you have physical evidence.
This isn't hard. I haven't read the in-depth reporting, but my guess is that BYU took the old-school approach to rape rather than the modern-day junk.
-
1 hour ago, Vort said:
Boneheaded, stupid article. What an embarrassment to the site.
I agree, but the tenor of articles posted to the site over the last year has definitely tilted more to the left.
-
On 4/9/2017 at 0:14 AM, Seek said:
Why not lend a hand and help them to their feet so to speak (be positive), instead of keeping them down with your open disapproval?
The vast, vast majority of homosexuals don't want to be helped on their feet. They want God (if they believe in Him) to support them in their wickedness.
There are some who are examples and who strive to live the Gospel even when tempted by all these unrighteous things-but they are more the exception rather than the rule.
-
1 hour ago, Seek said:
1. The gentleman I had quoted seemed to advocate such. Since you quoted me in that context, I assumed you advocated the same.If you are referring to me, you are quite mistaken. I said :
"When you express happiness at others who live their live in sin directly contrary to God's will that is not being a good example. We don't have to be jerks, but at the same time we don't have to condone it- "
(emphasis added).
I remember in college there was a guy once who was holding up a huge sign saying "God HATES sinners. God HATES homosexuals . .. etc. etc." I think the guy was being a jerk about it. God hates the sin of homosexuality (as he does all sin), but he loves the individual.
Christ would have never said, "I'm happy that you are happy in the way you sin".
Please comprehend carefully. I was specifically referring to this idea (IMO perverse idea), that one should express that they are "happy" that some other individual is happy b/c they are living a lifestyle that is contrary to the Gospel. There are four types of responses, #1 expressing joy in their decisions, #2 saying nothing about it or #3 saying you disapprove (these actions are sin, etc.), but respect their right to choose or #4 vehemently condemn them.
IMO expressing that one is "happy" that they are happy comes very, very close to condoning such action. "Hey, I'm happy that you are happy you had an abortion!!!" Really, someone who has a deep rooted belief that abortion is murder would say that? I don't think so.
Yet when it comes to homosexuality, as a culture we have become so utterly brainwashed by mass media, and we have become complete cowards that we say stupid things like "I'm happy that you are happy with your new homosexual partner". So what exactly is the difference in the two sentences? In one, culture has not (as yet-even though it has tried) made people afraid to say abortion is murder, abortion is wrong. In the later, culture has so completely ingrained people that to say anything otherwise means you are (gasp!!!!!) a bigot!!!! (oh the horror!!!!). So in order to not be perceived as a bigot, or a homophobe, or what have you, people say stupid phrases, like "I'm happy you're happy" as the PC way of getting around being perceived as being a bigot. One can say "I'm happy your happy" and then feel satisfied that a) "well in my mind I didn't condone it" (yet they did) and b) I can't be labeled a bigot now. Because if one doesn't say anything-you're a bigot, if one says "I disapprove, but I respect your decisions"-you're a bigot. And you're especially a bigot if one condemns them.
In other words, through social shaming and cowardice, the left and others have ensured that the only "right" response is to congratulate someone on choosing to live a life contrary to the gospel.
As you said, sin is sin and no unclean thing can enter into God's presence. However, some sin is easier to get rid of than other sin. Homosexuality and sexual sins are some of the most serious sins. Why? Because as with murder, they are dealing with the power of life. Abuses of the power to take life and the power to create life are among the most heinous sins. And homosexuality is absolutely an abuse of the power to create life.
I have many, many things in my life to correct; and I don't look at myself as better than so-and-so b/c I don't sin in that way. I've been through my own personal fires of Hell and Damnation. I need Christ in my life very much to help me correct my life and keep it somewhat on the right path. But just b/c I am a very weak man and have my own foibles, problems, and issues does not mean I do not have the right nor ability to directly say what is right or what is wrong.
-
50 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:
I knew a random survivalist nut a while ago. He had an interesting approach to tithing. He'd convert everything he made into US gold eagles. These:
That coin is worth around $1400 at current gold prices. But see how on the tails side, it says "Twenty Dollars"?
So, he made $80,000 in a year, he'd convert it into 57 gold double-eagles. Each one worth twenty bucks - just look at the coin - it says so. So that means he made $1140. He'd go to tithing settlement with a hundred and twenty bucks in his pocket, and walk away whistling his happy full-tithe-payer tune. He was happy to give his FIAT currency speech to anyone who would listen, and how the federal reserve was the anti-christ, and other such things. It wasn't his fault the whole country does it wrong and prints worthless paper money - the coin is worth twenty bucks.
Yeah, the bishop didn't like kick him out of the church or anything, but he didn't get his temple recommend signed either.
A few years later, I helped him move. It seems he ran afoul of the law and the IRS seized his house.
That is definitely skating it . . .I read an article where one guy paid his employees in $20 gold pieces and then claimed to only pay taxes on that amount he gave to his employees. That seems way more legit than converting FRNs to gold and then only paying on face value in FRNs.
I agree with a lot of his premise . . .but unless and until the IRS loses it's teeth, you best pay in what they want otherwise you'll be getting it (and I firmly believe taxation is just legal plunder/robbery, but I still pay----as little as I can---but I still pay).
-
1 hour ago, Vort said:
Nope, I disagree. The interest you pay is not part of the price of the house; it is the cost of purchasing the loan on the house. You are paying for a service -- namely, the service of someone allowing you to borrow hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy your house. No different from buying catering for your daily meals. I completely disagree with the idea that somehow interest paid should be "deducted" from tithable income. This is not taxes and the IRS we're talking about.
Yes and no. Since most people borrow to buy a house, the ability to borrow money inflates housing prices, i.e. if no one could borrow to buy a house, housing prices would collapse like a rock. People would still buy homes, but their prices would not be so high. This is self-evident with the housing bubble in 2008 and the echo-bubble of today. More people with access to credit = higher prices.
That is why with inflation it gets harder to actually calculate what your increase is. If you buy for 100k and sell 10 years later for 300k and all you did was just live there, did you really get a increase or did the cost of everyone's home increase buy 200%. If everyone's home increased by 200% then unless you either downsize or sell your house to rent you have no increase.
That's why things get tricky. Quite frankly, the natural order of things is for housing prices to decrease. A house gets old, it needs repairs, it is no different than a vehicle. No one buys a vehicle for an "investment", they buy it b/c they need it. A house actually depreciates in cost, it is why if you own a rental home you get to deduct depreciation costs from the house.
The only reason you really make a nominal increase on a house is, a) you improved it somehow, b) you bought in an area that has seen lots of development and the demand in that particular area has now increased . . .
Housing, unlike most things is directly tied to two things, incomes and credit. If both of those is not increasing, housing nominal prices will fall, if they are increasing then prices will rise.
-
1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:
The harder way is the beatitudes and the example the Lord set.
Please tell me where in the beatitudes is this attitude you speak of being happy for those who are "happy" in their sin.
3. Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (Nope not here)
4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted. (Nope not here)
5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. (Nope not here)
6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled. (Definitely not here)
7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. (Nope not here)
8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God. (Nope not here)
9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. (Nope not here)
10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (Nope not here)
11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.(Nope not here)
I don't think you know what you are talking about. Yes I am a little cranky tonight (war and people-including members rejoicing in it-gets me cranky, I apologize I'll get it out of my system). People think Jesus was all about "love, peace happiness". He was but only in those things that were righteous and in those instances where people were truly repentant of their sins. He was extremely harsh to those who loved wickedness more than righteousness.
And mercy might be twisted into it, but mercy is the withholding of just condemnation or punishment. It is not the rejoicing of those who sin, but withholding punishment. Mercy would be simply saying "okay, you have your decision to make, whatever you choose". Not "I'm happy for you". On a scale there is condemning, mercy (i.e. withholding judgement), and condoning (saying I'm happy for you is condoning it).
-
1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:
As a friend, I should love you as a friend and remain happy for you in moments when you can find happiness.
No. That isn't a friend that is an enabler!!! My friend wants to jump off a bridge b/c he thinks it will bring happiness. "Welp, I'm happy that you are happy with that decision". Come on, that is dumb.
I true friend warns, uplifts and says, I don't agree with this decision, it will not bring you true happiness; if that is what you wish to do-it is your life, but I will not rejoice in your "happiness" and I won't enable you. I will still be here as a friend-but I ain't gonna cheer you on in this.
And quite frankly this is exactly the problem, b/c too many members of the Church really don't believe that homosexual behavior is sin or xyz and it is being pushed that "well there is nothing we can do, so we should just be happy for them". This world has gone mad.
-
And God has told us that wickedness never was happiness. Either it is true or it isn't. There is no middle ground. So for us as LDS members to be happy for someone who is living in sin is stupid.
You have bought into one of the lies of modern society. We see that when 2 homosexuals get married. Members of the church, saying "oh I'm so happy for you". What have we gone mad. I'm happy that you are entering into a life of sin, totally against God's will??
When you express happiness at others who live their live in sin directly contrary to God's will that is not being a good example. We don't have to be jerks, but at the same time we don't have to condone it-and yes saying you are happy that they are happy is condoning it.
- Armin and Just_A_Guy
-
2
-
1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:
If he is truly happy with his choice, then be happy for him, but NOT for his sin.
This makes absolutely no sense. Be happy for someone that they are happy committing sin??
I'm an adulterer that finds happiness is having multiple women besides my wife. You should be happy b/c I'm happy.
Nope. . . this is just more of the modern, political correctness claptrap that has infected society. This is just insanity that makes no sense. You don't have to hate them and yell at them when you see them, but to "be happy" for them b/c they are happy with their sin is just wrong.
- Armin, Just_A_Guy, eddified and 2 others
-
5
-
36 minutes ago, Godless said:
I'm all for getting rid of Assad, just as I was in favor of getting rid of Saddam. But we need to do it the right way. We blew it big time in Iraq. We can't afford another mess like that.
Obviously we didn't learn the right lesson, so we will have to learn it again. There is no "right way" except to not do it. You can't just overthrow a dictator, install a "democracy" in a region who's culture, background, ethnicity, people, etc. are completely anti-antithetical to it. IT DOESN'T WORK.
But we are stupid as a people on this, so we will get into another war in Syria and have to learn this lesson again . . .(sigh) and how much more blood we will have to spill, how much more treasure will we have to spend for us to wake up and realize it.
The sad thing is that for the US, modern war is so tidy, so clean. Hardly anyone on "our" side dies, no one has to pay heavy taxes for it. It's just ho-hum, let's go start a war, no biggie. Everyone else gets to die, we can destroy and burn cities, kill thousands of innocents all behind a keyboard in Nevada. For the US and it's people, war is cheap, just like everything else in this country, sex is cheap, morals are cheap, life is too easy. We have forgotten what it's really like to earn our bread by the sweat of our brow.
Do you realize there are kids that in another year will be fighting who were born after 9/11. 16 years of war. 16 flipping years of war. And you people are glad that Trump committed an act of War against another sovereign nation. My God what have we come to. 16 years.
We have homosexual marriage, transgender crap, immorality displayed all over the TV, news, etc. People have no civility, children are being raised as brats . . .and we have the moral rectitude to commit an act of War?? Shame on anyone who advocates for war in this situation. Shame on you.
One day, God will balance us . . .
-
25 minutes ago, Godless said:
The US didn't have much national security interest in Europe in the 1940s either,
SMH . . . oh my. Unfortunately we learned the wrong lessons from the 20th century. Ever heard of WWI?
The US directly ensured WWII by entering into WWI. The reason why Hitler came to power and was able to convince the Germans to go along with him was specifically b/c of the Treaty of Versailles. What about the Middle East? All of the problems in the middle east boil down to the "great" empires drawing artificial lines on a map to carve up a region that is controlled by tribal interest.
What about the hundreds of thousands of lives lost in Iraq, Afghanistan? Granted the US isn't like the mass murders of the 20th century, but to make out like the US is a paradigm of sainthood in an evil world is just plain ignorant, stupid, and turns a blind eye to the whole mess the US has created in so many parts of the world.
The Syrian problem is the US's making. ISIS was created by the US!!! This isn't conspiracy theory junk, it's out there, you just have to look it up. The US gave over a billion, yes BILLION dollars a year funding "rebels" against Assad. Where did that money/weapons go . . .to ISIS!!!
Do you realize that the US is literally funding the taliban? We built a massive huge generator over there and the Taliban ended up shooting the operators so we made a deal that said we'll give you 30% of the power generation if you don't kill people.
9/11 was a direct cause of the US meddling in the middle east during Gulf War I. Bin Laden said as much.
This really isn't rocket science here. If China started funneling money and weapons into the United States to support groups opposed to the US regime a lot of people would be pissed. If China had drones overhead and killed people during weddings and funerals, we would be pissed. It is the ultimate golden rule . . .but no. We are so Christian, we are sooo good, we are so awesome that it is amazing that the rest of the world doesn't bow down when we crap b/c we crap golden bricks.
Man, it is one of the things that drives me nuts about the Republican party . . .they really are the War Party.
Assad?? Really, shoot we had operators watching drones watch the entire thing happen and they aren't positive on what went down. We can't figure out if Russia hacked the DNC, but in less than 24 hours we know Assad did it? We couldn't find WMD in Iraq, yet in 24 hours Assad did it?
Stupid, stupid, stupid media and stupid brain dead people just swallow whatever it is the State wants for War Propaganda hook, line and sinker.
Wake up and do some reading of history.
People talk about our "depleted military" such stupid propaganda:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_in_service
The US has 19 active aircraft carriers, the entire rest of the world has 21!!!!
Military-Industrial-Intelligence-Complex. You want to know where many of the Gadiannton Robbers are . . . just look there. A lot of people are going to wake up one day and be real surprised when the see the evil their own government has committed in the name of righteousness.
-
33 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:
And even if I am wrong about that: because I am a Latter-day Saint first and an American second, I can't help but note that the Pax Americana is a big part of what keeps our missionaries traveling throughout much of the globe, keeps members free to practice their religions in their homelands, keeps local congregations free to receive material assistance from Salt Lake, and keeps our brothers and sisters from being robbed, maimed, raped, and killed by soldiers of aspiring thug-ocracies.
I can't breath through all the smoke of your Hubris.
I highly doubt the rest of the world sees it that way as you must not travel much. The US is hated pretty much around the world.
Don't you worry, the US will get it's comeuptence at some point; we like to think we are the "beacon of hope" that we are such a pristine country . . .when in actuality, we are pretty darn bad.
-
13 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:
Second, I don't want to see the US taking sides in Syria; but I think it is in America's interest to ensure, whenever possible, that those who use weapons of mass destruction pay a heavy price for doing so. I think Trump made the right call with this missile strike; though I would oppose deeper involvement. IMHO American foreign policy should champion good guys; and there are no sides that can be called "the good guys" in Syria.
Incorrect, it is definitely not in the United States national security interest to keep Assad from using chem weapons. The US was not directly attacked, no US personal, no US companies, equipment etc. "Deterring" Assad from using them has absolutely no relevance to deterring someone who would use them directly against the US. In fact attacking Assad is so antithetical to US principles it is astounding. At least in most US attacks on other countries over the last 100 years there was at least some pretense that the US was directly attacked.
Now it is just well just b/c we don't like you.
It was however in the US empire's interest to rebuke Assad. The sooner we call it what it is and recognize the difference the sooner we can have an honest open debate about it.
The US today is an empire just as much as Rome was in ancient days and as Great Britain was in the 1700&1800s. Sure, we don't have overt colonies and vassals, but you better believe we have them. The sooner we understand that, the better we can see just what exactly is going on.
IMO, the US empire is 180 degrees opposite what this country was founded upon and what it should be about.
-
22 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:
Just a friendly reminder (and I realize English is probably your second language, so it isn't intended as condemnation)--in English, the term "fag" is highly derogatory and isn't generally used in polite society; even amongst conservatives and/or Church members who oppose gay marriage.
Yeah but it didn't used to be that way, it's only not used in polite society now b/c of a PC culture-i.e. the homosexuals didn't like the term and got everyone else to buy into not using it.
-
Mh,
That sucks . . yeah I have no idea how other countries would handle it, but the US despite all it's faults and major problems still has a very strong belief and understanding of property rights. My porch, my house, my land. You come on my property and I ask you to leave and you don't, I call the cops and they arrest you for trespassing-end of story. You threaten me (in most places-still), I have a legal right to defend myself up to and including use of deadly force.
I concur, the anti-Mormon stuff always takes part truth and mixes it into something horrible or something it's not. Yes Joseph Smith was at one point highly involved in Masonry and there are a lot of similarities b/w the temple and Masonic symbols.
IMO, at worst Joseph Smith was simply directed by God to use something that a significant portion of people were familiar with at the time (Masonry in the US in the 1800s was very common-many of the US Founding Fathers were Masons and their signs are found all over early symbols in the US). A lot of people would have been familiar with masonic symbols and rituals. The Lord generally teaches his people using symbols and allegories they can understand (the NT talks about farming a lot and bread, people could understand deeper meaning by associating it with something they already knew).
At best, Masonry and their symbols/rituals were handed down from ancient times and had become polluted and JS was restoring them back to their original state.
We really don't know which and that is left up to the individual, through prayer and study.
We do know that Masonry was well known enough that it is very plausible (several GAs after JS death mention this) that when just before JS fell from Carthage Jail when he exclaimed "Oh Lord My God" that he was in the process of reciting the Masonic sign of distress "Oh Lord My God is there no help for the widow's son?" http://en.fairmormon.org/Question:_Were_Joseph_Smith's_final_words,_"O_Lord,_my_God!"_a_cry_for_help_or_mercy_from_Freemasons_in_the_mob_at_the_Carthage_jail%3F
- person0 and Just_A_Guy
-
2
-
No social grace in today's society.
The next instance, I would tell him in no uncertain terms that you don't care to hear anything about these beliefs and to please leave you alone. That he should consider this his final warning before you involve authorities. If he does it again, call the police.
-
43 minutes ago, anatess2 said:
Yes, you need 50+1 to pass an up/down vote. You need 60 to end debate in the Senate on new legislation so you can get to the up/down vote. So, however you slice and dice it, you need 60 votes to get it done. I don't know why that is hard to understand.
Lol . . .now you are starting to come to what I have been saying all along! (and what I've been saying all along a firm 50+1 majority will always get their way, if they want to-see Gorsutch). There is a difference b/w the vote to pass the bill and a vote to end debate. 2 different votes on 2 different things. You don't need 60 votes to pass, you only need 60 votes to end debate and that only comes into play if 40 people want to filibuster. As seen with the recent vote, 4 dems crossed over to vote for him.
That's why this is a moot point. You are advocating that instead of submitting Gorsutch to Congress 2 months ago, Trump should have submitted someone who could get past a possible filibuster.
The point being the Pres. nor the House should build a bill or confirmation worrying about and taking into consideration that it will be filibustered. You pass the best bill and then wait and see if it does get filibustered. If it does, then and only then, do you work on a compromise. That is how the process works. If it gets filibusted then you get the house/senate together for a compromise bill. You don't try to compromise before you are at the compromise table.
Again, why are you carrying water for Trump and Ryan?? You are obviously a conservative, but when the guys you like do something that definitely isn't conservative instead of calling them out, you defend them? Why, I don't get it.
I voted for Trump in the General, but I still think what he has done with Syria is absolutely stupid and not what I voted for and OCarelite was stupid and not what I voted for. He went in the 1st month from a solid A to now a D in my book. Just b/c I vote for them, doesn't mean I'm starstruck or mean I defend them to the nth degree.
Divorce reasons: "Abuse" and "Addiction"
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
I like that quote. Is a husband who comes home from work and plays video games destroying the other person's dignity? I don't think so-are they being a jerk about working together as a family . .. probably and they should probably change.
Abuse is a just cause for divorce . . .but I think emotional abuse is quite tricky. Verbal and physical abuse are pretty easy to spot; emotional abuse can be harder-and I take with a grain of salt what mental health professionals say as it is just pure quackery with a bunch of fancy titles.