yjacket

Just please tell me you aren't voting for Clinton?

I understand; that is the difference between the pure capitalist and the politician. The capitalist many times is forced to be moral through market means rather than of their own volition. This is especially true in today's hyper-sensitive social justice warriors who enforce their version of morality on businesses and crucify them if they don't comply. Contrast this with the politician who enforces their view of morality upon others through the enactment of laws and regulation. One is a bottom-up push the other is a top-down pull. Personally, I'd rather have the businessman in control of the government vs. the politician who wants to dictate to everyone else their own morals. With the businessman, I don't care about his morals or altruism as long as he doesn't enforce his version upon the rest. The politician, I know will enforce their version on the rest and that version, I know I won't like.

I asked for a direct quote a CFR, you couldn't provide one, ergo Trump didn't really say that, you just think that is what he said. CFR that he said he would "bomb everyone". Since when does "China should lean on North Korea" become "China should go to war with North Korea" . . .only in people's mind who want it to be that way does "lean on" mean "go to war with". Lean on means, pressure, means political pressure. We "lean on" Iran all the time with sanctions. If that "lean on" means military action then I guess we've already attacked Iran according to the way you re-interpret words. If I was pregnant and destitute, I'd want to come here too!! That's not the point. If someone was handing out free houses, I'd want a free one too! That's not the point! The point is whether as a nation of laws and ethics (as you point it), we are ethically bound to give someone a free house as a country because thew want it. You have a serious lack of understanding about economics and how things really work if you believe that WE don't pay for hospital care for those who can't pay. Someone, somewhere pays. The Doctor's time must be paid (he doesn't go work at the hospital for free), the medical supplies must be bought (they don't just magically, poof!, show up). Those things have real costs. If the hospital can't collect money from the person they are servicing and if they don't find some way to cover those costs-the hospital will go bankrupt and there won't be a hospital anymore. A non-profit organization must still pay people salaries, non-profit doesn't mean voluntary, it just means they don't provide payouts to shareholders, it's more of a tax term then anything else. A non-profit uses the excess revenue or "profit" in other ways than paying out shareholders, etc. A non-profit still makes money every year that they can roll-over the next year. So they must collect that money and they do it by charging someone, somewhere the costs for those services. Those costs are spread out over all the rest of their customers; their customers include you and me, or anyone who can pay who uses their services, i.e. insurance. To wit: why do you think the ObamaCare exhanges are collapsing? Because those companies assumed a huge risk pool of individuals who couldn't pay or who would only pay significantly reduced rates. The only way those exchanges can survive is a massive increase in the actual premium preciously b/c so many people don't pay enough to cover the costs! Your ideas on this subject inform me that either a) you've simply voted R b/c everyone else votes R or b) you are really liberal at heart and would vote Hillary regardless of what Trump says or does-simply b/c or c) you really have no idea how the system works, including as to why Hillary is a really bad idea-yes way, way worse than Trump (and he's not that great either)

Lol . . .hey it was the best I could come up with!

Bingo.The best leaders empower people to do their responsibility. Part of the responsibility of the supervisor is to advise his boss of general employee problems that he has a supervisor cannot fix. Yes sometimes it does suck, but it is the nature of humans. A single individual can really only effectively manage at most a dozen employees (maybe more if they are all superstars, and maybe a little less if they are all dunces). Beyond that it just becomes too much.

This is actually a really good article. http://blog.dilbert.com/post/151288850856/presidential-temperament I agree with most of it except with his nicknames . . .but if the worst thing he does as a President is call a foreign leader like Putin the Grouchy Bear or something I can live with that.

Maybe, just maybe they are listening and that unfortunately we live in the last days where "men's hearts" shall fail them. Maybe, just maybe nothing the Church leaders can do or would do will solve whatever problem it is you think there is. Maybe, just maybe we are living in a very, very wicked period of human history where people don't want to listen to the Prophets. Maybe, just maybe people are like the Nephites when Samuel got on the wall and the Nephites tried to kill him. We don't stone the prophets physically, but do we stone and kill them with our words? with our thoughts? Maybe, just maybe it's the people who are out of touch rather than the prophets and they would rather the prophets come to them then they come to the prophets. Maybe, just maybe we live in a society where people are so sick that they expect everyone else to solve their problems for them instead owning their own problems and fixing those problems themselves. Maybe it's like the scriptures have told us 45 Ye are swift to do iniquity but slow to remember the Lord your God. Ye have seen an angel, and he spake unto you; yea, ye have heard his voice from time to time; and he hath spoken unto you in a still small voice, but ye were past feeling, that ye could not feel his words; wherefore, he has spoken unto you like unto the voice of thunder, which did cause the earth to shake as if it were to divide asunder.

Please name the country he said he'd nuke? Please point me to the direct quote where he said that. What he has said and it is a very logical thing to say is that there are circumstance in which he would use nuclear weapons. If there are no circumstances in which a leader would use nuclear weapons, then why build them!!!! To provide employment to nuclear engineers?? That was the whole point of MAD-i.e. there are circumstances in which a country would use nuclear weapons. On a much smaller and less intense debate area. Do you have a gun in your house? If the same question is asked and you responded, I would never use a gun, then why are you keeping it? To look at? So yes he pointedly asked an interviewer a question. Why can't we use nuclear weapons? and if we can't use them then don't build them. That's not a bully, an idiot or a war-mongerer that is just common sense. Building a wall? You obviously don't get out much, the idea of limiting the amount of illegal immigrants entering this country is crazy? When (and I have personally witnessed this) two illegals can come across the border, have a child in the US with no medical insurance making the local hospital and everyone else who has insurance pay for their decision to illegally enter the country and have a child in a nice fancy hospital at someone elses expense it is time to do something about it. And to add insult to injury, the will now never be kicked out of this country b/c they have a US citizen with them? That is idiocy. No other country on the planet does anything similar. Building a wall to keep those types of individuals out is not. He's a dream come true for military contractors? And Clinton is not?? He never said China should invade N. Korea. He said China should lean on N. Korea. BIG difference. And Putin, do you really want another cold war? Time and time again, nations that trade with each other, that talk with each other don't go to war with each other. Again don't let the narrative that Trump is a racist, idiot, bully etc. get in the way of the facts!!! Please stop listening to what the media wants you to hear him say and actually listen to what he is saying and what he is trying to say.

You are right there was not a right side; except to stay the heck out of it!! The US has caused more international problems and strife by mucking around in other countries than would exists if it just left it alone. I really don't understand this "I highly doubt he is going to make a positive difference to international interests." We have a known war-mongering, who advocated overthrowing other countries leaders (and did so) without a declaration of war, with no authorization except that they just wanted to get rid of them. Giddafi "We came, we saw, he died"?? The US makes itself out like it is this paragon of virtue and sainthood with regards to foreign policy. We castigate Russia for Georgia and Crimea, yet we can't seem to get beyond the fact that from the perspective of many Middle Eastern people the biggest terrorist is the US. We have drones that rain hell fire upon civilian populations and the chief architects and advocates of those policies are Obama and Clinton. And you highly doubt Trump is going to make a positive difference to international interest? Shoot it's hard to do worse than what Obama,Clinton (and Bush) have done in the past 16 years! The hypocrisy is astounding. If anything at least Trump isn't tied to the war-mongering elites. For what it's worth, in my neck of the woods my state is listed as a "toss-up". Hahahaha, anyone who actual lives in my state knows that is a bunch of bull-Trump wins my state hands down no contest. The Rs have a super-majority in both houses (not that that's a good thing), both senators are R, the congressmen are overwhelming R. I'm in a major metro area and went out for ice cream at a local parlor that has an old-school chalkboard. Go Trump! and Trump wins was written at least 10 times with boo Hillary with frowny faces several times. No chance in hades Clinton wins my state and it's listed as a toss-up; that tells you how the accurate the "polls" are. If you don't like either of the major candidates then either write someone in or vote Libertarian. Just please don't vote for Hillary, she is bad, bad news. That woman is evil and the most pernicious evil is the kind that presents a facade of niceness, caring, etc. but on the inside they are rotten to the core. The person that appears evil on the outside is easy to deal with, the ones that appear good on the outside but on the inside are true devils-those are the people you really have to watch out for.

Yes, of course. Sometimes (in fact many times), the child simply doesn't agree with the parental decision. When that happens, no amount of talk is going to do any good. There comes a time when the decision must be made and it is the parents job to make it. And the key here is that this is a leadership principle. Leaders lead, i.e. they are obligated to make decisions and take charge and by doing so they will always find individuals who disagree with their position. The proper leadership response is, to listen and then lead-just b/c you don't like the response doesn't mean they haven't listened or they don't understand. I know this is a really hard concept to understand b/c in today's world, everyone thinks they everyone else must listen to them-when that idea is mostly bunk. Yes it is good to get a idea as to what the common people are saying feeling, but a football coach once said STTE of: if you start heeding what the fans in the bleachers are saying you'll soon find yourself joining them in the bleachers. Leaders have an obligation to take the temperature of those they lead and listen to see if there are real concerns, but the moment they start paying attention to every little problem is the moment they stop actually leading and start following. And I'll flip your statement on you. Once you start actually listening and really paying attention to what your leaders are saying and communicating-you might be surprised to find out how much you don't understand and how much they do and how much better the counsel they give is if you show a real effort to fully understand them.

Bingo. From what I've seen, I think the Apostles and their counsels do a fine job of what they seem to be intended for, which is informing the leadership on various relevant topics of interest. I've only seen a few short ones b/c of time-but there doesn't seem to be anything earth shattering here. The Q12 has a specific area of interest and they either go task someone to look into it and report on it or someone has a specific calling to look into the relevant topics of the day. The report on the housing bubble left something to be desired, but then again I don't think this are meant to be a college level class, I think it is meant to just keep the Brethren abreast of relevant issues and go into it in some detail but not write a dissertation on it. For that purpose, from what I've seen it probably meets exactly what they want. I do find the talk of "they don't know how I feel" rather silly, immature and self-centered. Of course they don't know how you feel, in fact no one does-the only person ever to have walked this Earth that knows how each of us feels is Jesus Christ. The whole point of the Gospel is for us to learn to find solace and guidance from the One who saves and then in some measure try to replicate that to our fellow human beings. I've been through some rough crap in my life (more-so than many at my stage), but I'm no one special and I certainly don't begrudge or immaturely toss away someone's advice b/c "they don't know what I've been through". I have learned in life that sometimes the best advice comes from people who haven't been through something similar but have the ability to see things in a different light and provide counsel from a different perspective. In fact, I find that type of counsel and advice refreshing; does it always work,absolutely not, but I still appreciate the thought that went into someone else trying to provide counsel, solace or guidance even in a matter that they are not terribly familiar with. It's like parenting. My child will say, "I'm unloved" or "you don't understand me", yes child I understand how from your perspective you would say that . . .but it simply isn't the case. One day when you are a parent you too will understand what I am doing now.

Again, we see what we want to see and don't let the facts get in the way of a narrative? Clinton who plainly defies laws that could end up getting people killed, the woman who quite simply created ISIS is fit? And I say created ISIS b/c what exactly do you really think Benghazi was about? It was about gun-running and money-running to "rebels" who were to overthrow Assad. Those rebels had a name, the name was Al-queda in Syria which later became ISIS. I don't say this b/c of Trump, I say it b/c of my experience of where I have worked. Benghazi was all about supplying weapons and money to terrorists who we thought would fight for us, except they didn't. ISIS control MRAPS, and other pieces of US military equipment. . . .the sad truth is that the US funded ISIS.

??? Umm, no, tax laws are not a form of "moral obligation". Income taxes are theft pure and simple. The naked truth of taxes is that if I do not pay taxes, someone will come into my house, forcible take me and throw me in a jail. That is robbery plain and simple. We give the robber a special name "government", and say special words like "law" but it is still theft. My friend, you are seriously mistaken if you think taxes are required for society to function. No one has an obligation to pay more in income taxes than exactly what they are required to pay to keep themselves out of jail. Given the current tax code, it becomes a fiduciary responsibility or organizations to pay as little as possible in taxes. Why do you think GE pays 0 in taxes. You don't want that to happen, very simple fix- simplify the tax code to a simple flat tax. Did you know that when the income tax was first passed it was only 1% for people making above 10,000 (which is roughly equal to over 100k today)?

It's not about immigration per say but about the quantity and quality of immigration. Right now in the United States, over 13.1% of the population is foreign born. That is an all-time record and high. When you have that large of a percentage of the population who are not native to the US problems with assimilation will occur. People generally tend to congregate and associate with people of their own ethnicity, background, culture, etc. Such a large population who is foreign born does not encourage assimilation b/c assimilating to the US culture is the harder path. People (when faced with a choice) will generally take the path of least resistance. This is what is happening in the European countries, the percentage of individuals who are foreign born are at all-time highs and consequently do not assimilate (b/c they don't have a need to), this disrupts culture, social standings, etc. We seriously need to reconsider our immigration policies, limit the amount of immigrants coming in and allow the current immigrants to assimilate; if we shut down borders this social strive problem will solve itself in about 20-30 years and then we can think about admitting more immigrants. We must as a nation significantly reduce the percentage of individuals who are foreign born-this will solve a lot of social strive problems in this country.

Everyone I know is for law and order too . . .but not Hillary Clinton and the people in charge in Baltimore. They say, yeah people can just riot Law and order does not mean enforcing regulations or taxes. Law and order means 1 thing, protection of life, liberty, property. And everyone I know is for calculating their tax return in the best way possible to get as much money back as possible. Considering there are tons of ways one can calculate their tax return and still be 100% correct-especially as a business owner. What are you talking about that he "pretends to be a law and order guy", please tell me where his supporters have hurt other people. Oh wait a second you mean this? Again, don't let the facts get in the way of the narrative!!

Denying his own quotes . . .let's take the "Miss Piggy" and "Miss Housekeeping". I have not found the actual article where he is quoted as saying that. Context is everything-yet with all the coverage of this, I can't find ONE article that actual tells me the direct quote of what he said. In this video, he mentions several times she was/is extremely beautiful and just that the stress of the job (this is after a year of her BEING Miss Universe) that she was eating too much and this was to help her get into shape so that when she passed off the crown to the next Miss Universe she would look fabulous. He also says that when she won it she was "too light" at 118. He also mentions that he owned 50% of it with a partnership with Time and that other people wanted to fire her but that he didn't, he wanted to get her back into shape rather than fire her. For pete sake's this is a Beauty contest, where women on judged on how they look!!!! So that is his great crime is being involved in a beauty contest. As for the media being present . . .who know why it needed to be a media event, maybe b/c he partner wanted it, maybe b/c the news wanted it, who knows. And being on the news is shaming . . .this woman paraded around in a bikini for the world, but exercising in front of the news media is inappropriate. This is "fat-shaming", (and yes she is a little over-weight for Miss Universe-she's not fat and still a very good looking gal, but certainly not the "Miss Universe physique"). You don't want to have the Miss Universe physique then don't compete in it!!! But don't let the facts get in the way of the narrative!

??? So a "lengthy law and order rant" is unhinged? I don't like stop and frisk, I don't think we should use it. But this is not "unhinged". He makes some excellent points . .let's just go through the list of crap that has happened in the past several years, Ferguson, Baltimore, Charlotte, Atlanta, Occupy Wallstreet, etc. These are people who "protest" by going onto the major freeway of Atlanta for example and completely shut it down with absolutely no consequences. Those people should be arrested and thrown in jail!!! I am very sympathetic to police shootings (if you look on this website, I have brought up several examples of IMO unjust, immoral killings by the police). Those problems are mainly caused by the drug war and the militarization of the police. So no I don't like stop and frisk in the least bit-but it's not "unhinged", the point his is making is that we have a serious problem in the country right now where an unjust shooting happens and then protesters think it's okay to do whatever they want to (and that is not right). Clinton's solution is to just let the rioters riot. Her attitude is that of the Baltimore Mayor " We also gave those who wish to destroy space to do that as well.” ??? What kind of crap is that. That is unhinged. He was not ranting and raving with spittal coming out of his mouth. The funny thing I've noticed is how much the media deranges him without even using his words. A hit article will literally quote only one sentence and then say he is crazy. This is a "rant" and "unhinged"?

Which part came across as he was bonkers?

Cruz pretty much had to endorse him. All the R nominees signed a pledge, so either your honor your word or you don't. Cruz and Kasich decided to not honor the pledge; Cruz finally saw the light and decided to honor it. I don't have much respect (if any for Cruz) but I will give him a little credit for this. The right thing for Cruz to have done is to have initially never signed a pledge (just like Trump initially never signed a pledge-and then he did). You don't want to support the nominee, that's fine-then don't sign a pledge and repeat in front of millions that your will support whoever is the nominee. Saying you'll support whoever it is and then later changing your mind to not support them doesn't make you principled . . .it makes you a weasel. Side note: (I'd personally prefer that all the candidates had just said, no I'm not going to sign a stupid pledge), but they did so and said so multiple times publicly in front of millions-so they should honor their word or they are just slimeball politicians, willing to do and say anything to get elected.

It is; I used to think a lot of bad things about Trump, he was a horrible person etc. He was never my guy in the primary (my guy was Rand Paul) . . .but somewhere in the 2nd or 3rd debate I saw something. I still don't know what exactly I saw, what action or thing he did, I can't even put a finger on it; but there was something that happened that made me say to myself wait just a second-there is more to this guy than meets the eye. I started really thinking and analyzing his moves and what he did and I decided he was actually extremely smart, and a very talented persuader. Whether it is natural, trained, calculated or spontaneous I don't know, but I do know he has a knack for being able to persuade others to his view point. He does it in a very different way than most politicians, probably b/c he recognizes a few key aspects of leadership. A lot of leadership is BS. I'll give a quick example, a study done revealed that on average leaders take around 7 min. to make a decision. Now if you think that a leader is that much wiser that they can make a really well-informed decision in 7 min. you're fooling yourself. They do that b/c they a) trust their gut and b) others expect them to take decisive action. A good leader #1 acts like a leader (i.e. he acts like he knows what he's doing, even if he really doesn't), some of those qualities end up being commanding qualities, i.e. they don't ask-they tell.. A leader gets things done, they work extremely hard. And ultimately a good leader has to have the ability to persuade others to his position. This persuasion is done by a) when attacked attack back, never give an inch and b) once the battle is over and you've won let bygones be bygones quickly b/c you never know when you will need an "enemy" be your friend You don't get to be the head of a multi-billion dollar company without those qualities (if you do-it will quickly go under). Is he the best leader out there, absolutely not, but he is the best leader running. The servant leader model has some similarities but is also very different-it works very well in the Church; it doesn't work quite as well in business. Once I started picking up on this, I started doing more reading and I later found Scott Adams and he articulated a lot of what I was thinking very well. I am very libertarian, more anarco-capitalist, and I really want to vote for Johnson . . .unfortunately I think the guy has smoked too much weed. He was a much better candidate 4 years ago than today.

There are consequences to our actions and behaviors. The Atonement helps us change and helps us become One with God, but it does not, cannot take away the consequences. Sexual relations outside of marriage is a very big sin . . ..there are consequences for our actions. I would not marry an individual who had sex out of wedlock. period, end of story. And I would advise my children the same. 75 years ago, the consequence for premartial sex was generally children out of wedlock. Now, due to modern birth-control, it has cheapened the mortal consequences for premartial sex (and this is not a good thing). There are some things you just don't do in life. Pre-martial sex is one of them. There are plenty of fish in the water who have kept themselves chaste; go find one of them and marry them is my advice to the righteous youth. In marriage we are counseled to not be unequally yolked in marriage. A righteous youth from the start marrying someone who was rebellious and who is now good is probably going to be unequally yolked. It is unreasonable to expect the whole, chaste youth who has not wavered to be equally yolked to the once rebellious youth. The portrayal of it happening in life is generally for fairy tales. Like attracts like. . . which is why in general this isn't going to be an issue. More likely than not the chaste youth will end up naturally with other youth who have a similar background. The individual who had a wild-side in the past but who is now clean will more likely than not attract someone who also had a wild side at one point. It's just natural selection.

Yeap, very interesting. Robots filling the polls or are they a somewhat accurate gauge?? For me personally, the most off putting thing about Clinton is her smile; something about it just oozes ick to me. I already don't like her, but man that smile is horrible. It is very similar to my dislike of Cruz's smile (after every "applause" line, he would crack a small grin). https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwix0Inho7DPAhUG7iYKHcRTBhsQjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnbc.com%2F2016%2F09%2F27%2Fclinton-wins-debate-stops-trumps-momentum-commentary.html&bvm=bv.134052249,d.eWE&psig=AFQjCNEAnvm_9gPpSB3A5k4rgqxnttpyQA&ust=1475090835646209 https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi9qcT0o7DPAhWFOCYKHUPHDcgQjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.macleans.ca%2Fpolitics%2Fwashington%2Fhillary-clintons-subversive-debate-smile%2F&bvm=bv.134052249,d.eWE&psig=AFQjCNEAnvm_9gPpSB3A5k4rgqxnttpyQA&ust=1475090835646209

I never said it was. This topic is on teaching Chastity, virgin/non-virgin isn't the issue, Chastity is the issue, which encompasses (for those who have never been married) virgin/non-virgin. Having said that there are issues that can arise when marrying a non-virgin who has been chaste. We are talking about the most intimate act a human being can ever do or conceive of. Of course there are potential minefields when one marries a non-virgin who has been chaste-but those minefields generally do not involve any worthiness,self-mastery or self-control problems, more of potential issues simply from having sexual relationships with others. I dislike the chewed bubble gum analogy because it cheapens the meaning. Having sexual relations is more than just chewing bubble gum . . .

I'm not talking about widows or divorcees (which bring their own problems and baggage-I would also recommend my kids to never marry a divorcee too). I'm talking about youth, as in they had sexual relations outside of marriage. ?? How is it not a wise criteria. One is choosing an eternal partner and you are saying selection of a mate based on the 3rd most grievous sin (besides murder and denying the Spirit), is not wise? I'm not attacking you personally, I'm just telling you that line of thinking is just inaccurate and plain wrong. Sexual relationships is the basis of society, the foundation of life and should only be used within the bounds of marriage and you are saying that it isn't a wise criteria. Praytell what does make a wise criteria then? Whether you can have a conversation together? If one can't actually follow one of the most important commandments God gives, how is one going to actually function in the most important role in life, spouse and parent? We must live in different worlds. Fornication before marriage is a huge deal and one should think long and hard and think some more and think some more, before deciding that they want to marry that person. This isn't about virgin/non-virgin, this is about following the most basic of God's commandments. And yes divorcee bring their own baggage, they just do-it doesn't make them (or those who have fornicated) any less in the eyes of God, and the Atonement has claim upon them. But we are talking about the person you want to spend the rest of eternity with . . . if one decides to marry one who has fornicated or a divorcee, one must go into it with eyes wide open that there will be issues they will confront that other people will not have to confront.

There is a difference between never hearing of Trump or Hillary and never seeing them speak in person. The media has demonized Trump to the nth degree; but when you really look at it, Trump himself hasn't actually been seen speaking much. Sure 5 min. here and there and in the Rep. debates. But there are still plenty of voters who never get involved in the Primaries who vote. The number of people who watched the Repub. debates max 20 million. People who watched the Pres. debates close to 100 million. That's a huge difference. Political junkies are already familiar but not joe blow. He is familiar with what he's been told by the media, but not how the actual candidates speak. My thesis is if joe blow came away from the debate thinking Trump is aggressive, bold, etc. but not the evil demon the media makes him out to be-he won. If he had unloaded on Clinton it would have played into Clinton's hands. Now, if at some point in the debates he doesn't unload on her, I will change my mind and scratch my head.