yjacket

I had the opportunity to serve as a BP as a missionary and I had a young woman who came to me with law of chastity issues. Unfortunately (or fortunately-depending on your perspective), a missionary (even a missionary called as a BP) has absolutely no authority to resolve law of chastity issues with members of the church. Basically, if you tell him you have law of chastity issues, he is supposed to tell you that he cannot resolve this issue, there is a path to repentance through the Atonement, but in order for you to resolve this issue you must talk to the District President, if you do not have a District President then you will need to talk to the Mission President. The District President and/or the Mission President will be able to talk with you in complete confidentiality (no one else will be present except you and the District or Mission President). You will then be able to fully explain the problem you are facing and the President will be able to help you determine the appropriate path to overcome this challenge. Repentance, as someone mentioned earlier is only between you and the Lord, the Mission/District President's role is to be a "judge in Israel", to help you repent, to help you understand the process and the steps needed to overcome the challenges you face. Sometimes, if the sin is grievous enough, the "judge in Israel" might proscribe restrictions on what you might be able to do in the church, like not partaking of the sacrament. These restrictions are not necessarily a punishment, but a way to help the sinner to repent. Sometimes the "judge" will proscribe no restrictions but will counsel and guide you in the steps to take. Do not be afraid of going to the "judge in Israel", his role is to help you, not to condemn you, but to lift you up. If you live in an area where it is difficult to visit (through long distances, etc) the Mission or District President, then give them a call. Tell them you are having issues and that you would like to visit with them but that it might be a while before you are able to talk. Even over the phone, they will be able to help you. The most important thing is for you to get right with the Lord and with yourself; do whatever necessary to make that happen.

Humans in a large way are very simple creatures. In general, we all act in a manner that we believe will be the best way to serve our own self-interest. The older we get, the more complex this becomes . . . but our own self-interest is the basis of the vast majority of our actions; it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to be completely selfless. So there is a reason, as to why the 14-year old feels it is in her best interest to not attend church. The trick is to finding out what that reason is- or more appropriately finding out how to motivate her into understanding that going to church really is in her long-term best interest. There are many different tactics to do so, some are rather harsh and some can be too lenient, and some require her coming to that understanding herself. I have little ones, but I could easily see myself saying to a 14 year-old, okay I understand that you don't want to take the Sabbath day as a day of rest to worship the Lord; that's fine. It's your choice to go to church or not, however not going to church and taking a day of rest means it will be a day of work for you. So here is what you are to do today while the rest of the family is resting from our labors: I would proceed to have a todo list a mile long, not punishment or a grounding just work that needs to be done. Now if the work doesn't get done, then I would proceed to punish or ground as I would for any normal work or task that isn't accomplished in the appropriate time-frame. For a little-one, it doesn't matter, you're coming to church b/c I told you. As they get older the box that they play in (i.e. my house rules) expand, so that the boundaries are bigger and bigger so they have more and more freedom to choose; but always they are playing in my sand box and I make the rules for that sand box; and those rules are whatever necessary to persuade my child that staying inside the sand box is much better than outside the sand box, even though I expect that they will go outside the sand box from time to time. The box will grow and grow-until of course the sand box as big as the whole world :-).

Communism destroys man’s God-given free agency... Latter-day Saints cannot be true to their faith and lend aid, encouragement, or sympathy to any of these false philosophies. They will prove snares to their feet.” - Prophet David O. McKay, see R. Clayton Brough, His Servants Speak, 1975, p. 77 “No true Latter-day Saint and no true American can be a socialist or a communist.” - Prophet Ezra Taft Benson, as quoted in The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power, by D. Michael Quinn I personally really like these quotes and I believe them to be true. But I would add, no person who truly understands socialism, communism and the gospel. Socialism/Communism and the Gospel are completely incompatible, and I firmly believe that if one understands them, one will come to the same conclusion. My original point is that (especially in foreign countries that do not have a history of understanding socialism, the gospel, etc), the one can start off adhering to one political belief or another but that as one understands the Gospel more and more, one will move away from any political belief that "destroy's man's God-given free agency".

I didn't say it didn't discuss politics only that "or at least what should be the correct political thought according to God." Yes, the BoM and D&C discuss government, but try going into Sunday School and start a lesson about the evils of ObamaCare or Democrats . . . you'd be going off in left field. Depending on the set of scriptures and the time period, one will get many different answers. Yes, all sets of scripture discuss politics and government, but generally speaking the actual "content" of the scriptures isn't about telling the rest of mankind exactly what political structure should be set up - it's about telling mankind how they should comport themselves with the rest of their fellow human beings. The actual context of scriptures as referencing government has been interpreted differently in many different ages and cultures depending on the social construct of the people reading the scriptures. The Book of Mormon and the D&C are uniquely American scriptures in that they reflect and were/are interpreted through the lenses of American ideals. Even so, the interpretation of government has changed over the past 100 years. Originally, the Saints set up their own country, their own Theocratic government. That was eventually rolled up into the state of Utah, and the different interpretations on the role and function of government have changed according to the culture and times. For example, I highly doubt we will ever have a prophet again like Ezra Taft Benson who was involved with the John Birch Society and who's talks reflect to a good extent those political philosophies. It is also very interesting and will continue to be very interesting to see the interpretation of government in the future as the Church grows more internationally. I for the record am very libertarian, but I recognize that many other people can and will have different interpretations of government, even if they are LDS. And for the person who asked about socialism and religion. Christian socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Christian communism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Just b/c the main branch of Communism/Socialism was atheist, doesn't mean it can't exist. I would argue that even if it starts out as Christian socialism, it will eventually tend towards a godless society, but there are still people who believe in the two.

I think the answer is yes, one can be LDS and socialist, anarchist, liberal, etc. In general, the scriptures do not discuss politics much - or at least what should be the correct political thought according to God. Maybe that was what is in the sealed portions of the BoM?? I believe it is up to each individual to come to their own understanding as to what political leaning they should have within the framework of the Gospel. Given that, one can still take the Scriptures and pretty much justify their own political base from the scriptures alone. However, I personally believe that most individuals do not have a solid deep grasp and understanding of their own political thought. They are xyz because of either culture, education, or parental upbringing. Individuals are "liberal" because it feels good, or they are "conservative" because they want to preserve the "old-ways", etc. They can't tell you why or the root principle of their belief. I also believe that the more an individual studies the Gospel and the scriptures and tries to harmonize their life with it, the more that such individuals will tend toward political leanings that eschew the use of violence and force to impress upon others the righteousness of their ideas.

As long as the government does not institute price controls there will be no shortages of food due to inflation. Many people will not be able to buy a lot of food-because it will be expensive, but it will always be there to purchase -barring some natural disaster or drought, etc. The minute price controls are instituted is the minute shortages will start occurring. Hopefully, those in government have learned the lessons of the past, price controls do not work, they only exacerbate the problem.

I personally don't believe it is 10-15%, but I do believe it is higher than the under 2% the Fed claims. A good place to check is MIT's Billion Prices project. Their inflation rate tracks similarly to the official rate, but it is higher. Right now it is above 2.5%. I think the biggest problem people have in general is not recognizing that inflation is a non-uniform event. In other words, it doesn't affect all things the same way. We have had serial bubbles in the past 15 years in stocks, housing, bonds, stocks again, etc. These bubbles are the manifestations of inflation. When housing was increasing at 15% a year, the official inflation rate was around 5%. The newly created money that the Fed was printed didn't go into other goods, it went into the housing bubble. When the Fed. prints money, the newly created money goes into the area that will get the greatest return. In 1999 that was stocks, in 2005 it was housing, in 2010-2013 it was bonds and commodities, now it is stocks again. Just because the conglomerate inflation rate isn't 10% doesn't mean there isn't a lot of inflation going on; there is it is just directed into certain areas. So while housing was going up at 15%, clothes and other items were going down because of increasing in productivity, outsourcing overseas, machines taking over human jobs, etc. This is part of the structural problem with the economy right now. Before the recession, there were a lot of jobs that had simply become outdated b/c of productivity gains but companies still held onto those positions. During the downturn, the companies cut all the dead weight. Now they find they can thrive just as well without the dead weight because of productivity gains. They have dire needs for some positions and not enough people to fill them b/c they are different kinds of jobs. It's a skills mismatch and why it is taking so long for jobs to recover. Interestingly enough, the biggest necessary resource in the economy, oil has had about an 8.7% inflation rate since 2001. I'm just waiting for the next oil shock to hit . . .

I don't think BLS is deliberately falsifying their numbers, but I do believe they put a little "black magic" into their numbers. We know they hedonistically adjust their pricing, i.e. if a newer television this year is priced the same as last years model but has new features then they adjust the price down to account for the new features. How they actually calculate how much say an internet connected TV is worth in this years model vs. a non-internet connected TV in last years model at the same price is beyond me . . .

Well it depends. If one is buying survival things out of fear b/c Beck says so then those individuals will eventually end up getting burned. If one is buying b/c they understand the workings of the monetary system then probably not. I buy, but I stopped buying about 2 years ago when things started going parabolic, I've only recently starting buying again, but not b/c anyone was telling me to buy. I'll say this much, I'd sure rather be buying gold right now vs. buying stocks. The risk/reward on gold is much better than stocks at their current respective prices.

Always fighting the last war. The most important charts are below: MZM Money Stock (MZM) - FRED - St. Louis Fed Velocity of MZM Money Stock (MZMV) - FRED - St. Louis Fed The "inflation" rate is a combination of a lot of things. If we measure inflation as a measure of prices, then those prices are affected by 4 factors. The supply/demand of the good and the supply/demand of money. The two charts above illustrate the current supply (MZM) and demand (MZM velocity) of money. In a theoretical world with a set supply of money, the prices of goods would gently fall over time. This is because of productivity gains as humans become more efficient at producing whatever good they are consuming. This is easily seen in computer/technology prices. Over time prices fall as technology improves and we get better at producing higher quality goods. Over the past 10-15 years, the world has undergone a massive transformation, IMHO greater than the industrial revolution. The massive amount of productivity gains over the last 15 years is astronomical. As such we should expect prices of things to fall, demand is increasing but the supply of the goods increasing much more due to scaling. In fact, we should expect prices to have fallen far greater than they have. Let's say in a world with no increase in the money supply prices would be falling at 5% a year, instead they are increasing around 1% a year. We think of that as "low" inflation, but in reality we actually have a high distortion of prices amounting to about 6% a year. No one gets up in arms about it, but it is a high distortion nonetheless. Now back to the supply/demand of money. The supply of money has exploded over the last 5 years, however at the same time the demand for money has also exploded (i.e. low velocity of money). People want cash on hand b/c they need to pay debts, they have low cash reserves, need to pay bills, etc. So while the Fed is printing like mad, it doesn't have as large of an effect as it could b/c people are in essence taking that money and stuffing it under a mattress or paying of debts (and the money disappears) and so it doesn't affect pricing. The velocity of money is at the lowest it's been in 60 years. It could always go lower, but the probability that the velocity of money will increase from here is pretty good. That will mean that in the future we will have high supply of money and lower demand for money which will translate into higher inflation. When it happens is anyone's guess but personally I highly doubt the stock market is a true reflection of the economy . . .

It's a nice thought, but nope. This stuff did and does happen in real life. Church Committee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia After the Church Committee, many of the illegal activities were curtailed. However, after 9/11, the Patriot Act and the knee-jerk reaction to "get-em" at all costs, I would say many of the illegal activities the Church Committee curtailed came back in full-force. Take for example the FISA court, it is supposed to be a check on warrentless seaches. In practice, it is more of an automated kangaroo court were very few requests are turned down. If a request is turned down, it is more because the person submitting the request didn't put in the right words in the request. The FISA court is a sham, to maintain the appearance of legality. United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia "In all, over the entire 33-year period, the FISA court has granted 33,942 warrants, with only 11 denials". It is a rubber-stamp on government officials activities-except no one gets to see the warrants!!! "Because of the sensitive nature of its business, the court is a "secret court" – its hearings are closed to the public. While records of the proceedings are kept, they also are unavailable to the public, although copies of some records with classified information redacted have been made public. Due to the classified nature of its proceedings, usually only government attorneys are permitted to appear before the court. Because of the nature of the matters heard before it, court hearings may need to take place at any time of day or night, weekdays or weekends; thus, at least one judge must be "on call" at all times to hear evidence and decide whether or not to issue a warrant. A heavily redacted version of an 2008 appeal by Yahoo of an order issued with respect to NSA's PRISM program had been published for the edification of other potential appellants. The identity of the appellant was declassified in June 2013.[12]" Change the name of the country conducting these activities to say Argentina (of the 70s), Chile (of the 70s), Russia, etc. and Americans would be up in arms, saying look at that dictatorial country. That would never happen here and even if it did, it would be 100% justified because our guys who are doing this are moral, just, and right while their guys who are doing this are evil, immoral, unjust. Our government is doing it to get bad guys, while their government is doing it to get good guys. Except that in "their" eyes they are doing it to get bad guys too. Of course all this stuff happened in the past and it couldn't possibly happen today . . .right?

I say it is a very bad and dangerous thing. We have a constitution that gives express power to Congress to declare war. I would say funding other countries wars, either monetarily or through material needs needs to be done through an act of Congress. Why would it be so secret? Because it allows the President and others in charge to do whatever they want to without oversight and without any check on their power. Ask a bully why he picks on other kids, the answer will be because he can. You don't actually believe that we have a President who has to answer to the Constitution or to Congress today, do you? I would say these types of incidents actually do more harm than good. It fosters ill-will in other countries, in the country we've mucked around we pick a winner side, who in 20-30 years will be on our "bad" list. Then we get to bomb the crap out of the bad guy who was the good guy, kill him and claim we were doing everything because he was so evil and we are so good. Look at Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan. All these countries in the last 30-40 years we've picked the winning side in their internal affairs. Then we go to war with them. Ever see the picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam. Rumsfeld 'helped Iraq get chemical weapons' | Mail Online So we materially contributed to funding a dictator with WMD. Then 20 years later we bomb the crud out of them killing hundreds of thousands of civilians, wounding or killing thousands of US solders, and spending trillions of dollars. Ah the secret wars of the United States. The moral superiority of the United States stinks. Here are some articles of the secret world that have been declassified: Project MKUltra - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (drug testing on US citizens) COINTELPRO - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (infiltrating political orgs) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_America_(airline) (drug-running) Let's not forget Snowden's most recent revelations: XKeyscore: NSA tool collects 'nearly everything a user does on the internet' | World news | theguardian.com Oh wait you didn't hear about XKeyScore from your regularly programmed news media outlet (CNN,Fox, CNBC); or if you did it was just brushed over. Look at the ppt from the guardian. Hmm, why would the major new media outlets mostly black-out the news. What would be their motive? Is it because political pressure is being applied to news outlets to suppress certain stories? Who knows . . . all I know is that the rabbit hole is very deep, and the US government isn't the great savior of the world. That will happen with the Lord returns and not before. Very little surprises me anymore.

The history of the US politics is a very tortured affair and can be extremely confusing for foreigners. Originally, in the US liberal meant something akin to someone who wanted more individual freedom, i.e. freedom from government. Sometime around 1900-1930, the definition ended up getting switched to liberal being someone who wanted the government to become more involved enforcing their definition of freedom. So for foreigners the definitions are flipped. US liberal = foreign Labor; US Conservative = foreign liberal. To really understand what happened, you've got to delve into history. The US was extremely regional at the beginning, mostly between states, but especially between North/South. As a rule of thumb the South was Democrat, which at that time was more State's rights and individual freedom. The North was more Republican and more Federal Government, Public Works, Public Goods focused. The Southern Democrats really held back a stronger Federal government for many, many years. Unfortunately, the south had the slave issue (which is bizarre considering how anti-federal government and pro individual rights they were-one of the oxymorons of history). Once the South was defeated after the Civil War, the Republicans turned the South into a military dictatorship ruled by Republicans (Reconstruction). Southerners didn't forget that for over 100 years. Even after the Civil War, Southerners were much more State's Right, Individual freedom oriented. But, b/c of Reconstruction they would not vote Republican. That is how FDR ended up winning. As the National Democratic Party turned more liberal (today's term), Southerners keep electing Dixicrats (very conservative politicians in an increasingly more liberal Democratic party). FDR won b/c the South couldn't stand to vote for a Republican, even though FDR was way more liberal than the Southern Congressman. It wasn't until the 1970s and 1980s that the South started voting Republican as Democrats became more and more liberal and the generational memory of Reconstruction faded. Today the South is solid Republican, i.e. more individual liberty focused. I'd argue that in practical terms today, it's mostly lip-service for both Parties. They both want power and control, just in different areas. Unfortunately, due to the US election policies of winner-take-all and first-past-the-post, plurality elections a viable 3rd party is impossible.

I don't quite think so. The Church had somewhere on the order of 55k missionaries before and this next January (a little over a year later) there could be 100k missionaries. Now simple math dictates that pre-new age rules about 27k missionaries went a year. So this past year there will be approximately 50k missionaries above the 27k average, meaning that at least around 25k new missionaries are going that wouldn't have gone otherwise. So while there will be a drop-off, it probably won't be from 100k back to 55k, it might be from 100k to 75k-80k.

A lot of good it did for Boston!! Of course, the government will spin this in any way to help them. Understanding government is extremely simple. Those who aspire to positions in government want power. Everyone acts and does things for what they perceive is in their own best interest. There are bureaucratic individuals and policy makers who have made their careers out of this program. To admit that this program is wrong would destroy those individuals who have a vested interest in the program. Those who have a vested interest are the ones administering the program. When those above them ask if the program is necessary, the only answer they will come back with is of course and here is why. If they said no it isn't necessary they would be killing themselves (i.e. then why have we been paying you to do x for the last x # of years!!). So in order to provide relevance (i.e. keep their job and money) they will claim it saved lives. Who would go into an interview or a job promotion saying, well I really screwed up here, here and here and my job really isn't necessary so you should fire me. Their employers are the public so in order to keep their job they will spin things in the best light possible. More to the point . . . if I put a policeman on every street corner it would not stop murder. Murder rates would probably drop, but it would not stop murder. The justification is that we need policemen on every street corner to stop murder. But everything has a cost benefit to it. Murder will not stop but it may be reduced, so have much time/money/effort is put into reducing the murder rate. To put a cop on every street corner requires additional taxes, additional manpower, additional funds. Then the question becomes is it really worth it? According to this mentality no cost is too great to reduce the murder rate. No cost is too great to reduce terrorists, it must be reduced at all costs. The line goes that even if 1 terrorist act is prevented then the program is justified. If 20 plots are "helped" (and we won't even go into what helped means, i.e. was PRISM the sole method of prevention or would those plots have been stopped regardless through good detective work??) over 7 seven years out of how many intrusions and false alarms? Unfortunately, those who have this myopic viewpoint are looking beyond the mark. Yes xx # of plots may have been stopped (we'll never know how much this program actually contributed to stopping them) but that is what is seen, what about the unseen. This program costs x # of billions of dollars and manpower. How many engineers worked on this program (100? 1000?). How much did it cost (100 million, 1 billion??) If this program didn't exist what would those resource been spent on. Instead of developing a computer program to suck up all the data, maybe some of those engineers would have spent time developing algorithms to map the human genome and map cancer, maybe that money would have been spent on medical cures or research? We simply do not know where that manpower and money would have been spent. So sure we see that 20 plots were supposedly foiled that supposedly saved lives; but what about the lives that could have or would have been saved or improved had those resources been deployed elsewhere. So 1) it cannot and could not stop terror. 2) It is against the Constitution of this country. 3) While the emotional ties that it claims to have prevented some accounts feels nice and fluffy, what about all the other great things that could have been done with those resources had they been put to other uses.

Actually yes, I do understand government. Part of the obligation and duty of every citizen who votes is to understand government, understand what the individuals who they have elected are doing, to understand if those elected officials are carrying out their responsibilities appropriately. You just made a very good case for restrictive voting. If one does not care enough to invest the time and energy into understanding the choices that their elected representatives make, that is fine . . . . then just don't vote at the ballot box. Low-information voters are the bane of a representative democracy . . .they are persuaded to vote one way or another based upon campaign slogans or who looks the best, who looks the most qualified, etc. Those who they elect understand this and are able to look/say/act one way while campaigning and then do something completely different in office. You are right the NSA thing is too massive; but there does not need to be some kind of surveillance to keep us safe. Government programs are too complicated, but that is because they are too big. Unfortunately, the big problem is a lack of education and understanding of what government is and what it should do. I'll break it down very simply. 1) Government is force!! It is the power to take one man and deprive him of his life (execution), his liberty (can put him in jail), his property (can tax). 2) The purpose of government is to protect life, liberty and property. The only time that government can deprive a man of life, liberty or property is when that man deprived another of life, liberty, or property. Back to the question at hand . . . why should the government conduct surveillance on me? What evidence is there that I have deprived another of life, liberty, or property? If there is someone who claims that I have done so, then yes the government has the obligation to investigate such a claim. That is done through a search warrant. However, if no one claims that I have deprived another of llp then an investigation into me is morally unjustified and wrong. Do I have the legal right to search my neighbor just because I feel like it? No that would be an invasion into his liberty and property. Just as much a governmental search into me without cause is an invasion of my liberty and property. One thing I hate is the idea of "privacy", privacy comes about because of property. I have privacy in my home because I own my home. Companies (google, etc) have privacy because they own their networks. The government does not have the right to tap into their networks because they are violating the property rights of those companies. Governments do not have the right to tap into my e-mail account because they are violating the property rights of my e-mail account. Back to surveillance and safety, part of the risk we take in being alive is that bad things will happen. It is a fact, and part of this life is to learn and to understand that people will die, people will commit horrible acts. Surveillance cannot and will not stop those things from happening.

More aggressive?? Oh you mean the US should retaliate for stuff like this? Iran Wages Cyber War Against US Banks and Arab Energy Firms But of course if I was Iranian I would say that before this that Iran should retaliate to the US for this: Stuxnet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia & U.S. sanctions against Iran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia which hit Iranian Banks. Which of course was because Iran is supposedly developing Nuclear Weapons. But of course if I were Iranian I would say that Iran should develop nuclear weapons because of the Iraq and Afghan wars. Which of course in the US was necessary because Iraq was developing WMD, but if I were Iraqi I'd say that of course Iraq should be developing WMD to protect my country . . . . and on and on and on we go. So who is retaliating against who? And why is the US government's responsibility to protect major corporations from IP theft? Is it the US government's responsibility to protect you from car theft? The merrygoround never ends, the US nationalistic culture is very similar to the Nephites and Laminates at the end of the BoM. They attack each other because the other side attacked them and they keep retaliating until it is unimportant who did what, it is only important that one is a Nephite and one is a Lamanite and therefore the opposing side is an enemy that must suffer for whatever grievous crimes he supposedly committed. It is slightly different as today the US enemies are Iran, yesterday it was Iraq and 20 years ago Iraq was a friend (see Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam), funding them against Iran . . . Cyber warfare is as much an act of war as economic warfare is (i.e. embargo) and a Country would be justified in launching a military war against a country who attacked them through economic or cyber warfare. Of course because it's a cyber war-and secret, the public (the ultimate arbitrator on when a war should or should not be declared) is completely unaware of when we are attacking other Nations. And we should be more aggressive?? I personally think we as a culture have become too detached from reality; we do not understand nor contemplate the full consequences of our decisions and actions. We declare war on another country who did not attack us and we go about our merry lives. Very, very few of us have really seen the cost of war, from a hundreds of thousands of dead Sons and Daughters of God to the thousands of battered and bruised veterans. We declare economic war on a country and ignore the human suffering and costs that occurs. We declare cyber war on a country and ignore the suffering that it causes. Not to mention the massive amount of resources that the US spends on carrying out such tasks. We believe that because we are in the most blessed nation on earth that it makes us right; every other country is wrong if we say so b/c might makes right and God has blessed us. And a pox on all the other heathen nations. The older I grow the more convinced I become that one of the major roots of conflict in this world is a lack of communication and an inability to see things from another person's perspective. This applies to marriages, children, families, communities, politics, and nations. The above doesn't mean that we should never go to war, it just means the bar has to be exceptionally high for warfare (of any type) to occur. I have seen very little in the past 13 years (except 9/11=afghan) that justifies the massive amount of warfare the US has been engaged in.

I disagree. This is a very perilous road to go down. Who is we and how are we getting our "clock cleaned"? It depends. Maybe we don't kill people we just destroy their livelihood; What Russia did to Georgia before they attacked is just the tip of the iceburg. What about a massive DoS to something like BitCoin or a stock exchange market. In some ways it is worse. In a direct attack, only the location close to the bomb are directly affected. Think if the US launched a cyber attack on Russia's banking system. Now you have the potential to disrupt the livelihood of every person in Russia rather than just the military infrastructure. Having the US government directly attack another countries internet infrastructure could be an act of War. Not only that, but now the US has the ability to launch highly disruptive, highly secretive wars against other countries, without Congressional oversight? And this is a good thing? This worldly tit-for-tat mentality that US culture has must stop or it ends very, very poorly. Most viruses come from either State actors or crime syndicates. So the next time one gets a virus, stop and think for a minute . . . did this virus just come from my own government??

It's not so much a matter of do you have anything to hide. It is simply a matter of too much power that has the potential for abuse. The whole police/security apparatus has been turned on it's head in the last 50 years. The purpose of police is not to prevent crime, but to find and prosecute those who do commit crime. The only people who can prevent crime and stop crime in a broad sense are individuals. Going down the road we are going as a society leads to a paranoid environment where everyone is a potential "threat". The neighbor across the street, the person you met at the gym. The messaging in the "See something, say something" is evident of it. I have nothing to hide, but because individuals know others are "watching" them so their behavior becomes modified, people talk differently for the fear of being perceived as doing something wrong. For example, I know if I "looked" like a Muslim, I would sure be watching my behavior - regardless of the fact that religion has very little to do with why Bin Laden attacked the US. So once it becomes an established practice that this data-mining is allowed it will exist in perpetuity. Now what happens in 10-20 years when a new "threat" emerges, instead of "communism" or "terrorism" it is something else. As now the battlefield (as one Senator said) is at home. What happens if someone is elected President who doesn't particularly like those who oppose him? What happens if the halls of Congress are attacked during his presidency? Now who becomes a target. I find it fascinating at how much we take for granted our freedoms and how willingly people seem to give them up. And how, well it can't happen here . . . I guess we think because we are the "greatest and most free and most blessed country every to walk the face of the earth" we think we are immune to the nature and politics of power. We only became the most free country because some very wise individuals understood the nature of power. You mention if it is used in any other manner than national security someone should go to jail. Well I guess it all depends on what your definition of "national security" is. NS to one is not the same as NS to another. National Security could mean attacking another country who threatens, or indefinitely holding someone because they said something that could be construed as a threat. When one has access to such power, it will be used for political purposes.

I'm going to do something that very few individuals will say in our Nationalist country.I truly am terribly sorry for what you went through. The horrors that you went through and the things you experienced should never be experienced by a human being. I am terribly sorry that you had to travel some 7000 miles away to some God forsaken land to participate in a stupid meaningless war, not "defending our freedoms", but in an idiotic mindless political game. That the root of these wars is the US's meddling in other countries affairs for the past 60 years. I have a brother who served in both Iraq and Afghanistan, he still doesn't talk much about it. Thankfully, he somehow made it through okay (and I say that only that he doesn't have any major outward scars). He mentioned to me once that the reason he went to Afghanistan was that after Iraq he felt he had to go to help protect his brothers -- forget all the patriotic crap, when it hits the fan, it's about those beside you. I don't know what the answer is . . . I believe (from what you've written) that you are a tortured soul trying to find relief. No one, will be able to quite understand the pain and suffering you've gone through, except One . . . Jesus Christ. The Atonement covers much more than our sins. It is our path to Peace. At-one-ment, at one with ourselves, with our fellow men, and with God. This much I do know, whatever emotional scars you have in your life-- you will have to deal with them and resolve them and you will have to keep resolving them. It is a long hard road. If one papers over the emotional scars, one will never truly be at peace and living the life that our Heavenly Father wants us to lead. It may take a while to be able to deal with the emotional damage . . . I can promise you that as you seek to understand more of the Master you will find more peace in your life. He is more compassionate than we can possibly imagine . . . The two greatest commandments: Love the Lord thy God Love your neighbor. May you find the peace you are striving for and need.

Do not ask questions you don't want to know the answers to. Simple answer: Money, power, politics. Not so simple answer: Drug running, gun running, CIA involvement, and propping up multiple "allies" who will later become our "enemies". The rabbit hole goes very, very deep. Embassy personal are very speCIAl people indeed. "You can't handle the Truth!"

No it is not a perfect document. But eating isn't a human right either. Claiming that eating is a human right is confusing positve and negativet. No one has the right to steal my food that I earned so that I can eat-that is negative (i.e. one may not do x). Claiming that eating is a human right means that I may steal someone else's food to eat, it is legalized theft-that is positive (i.e. one may do x). If eating is a human right and I may steal as I please to eat, then that means everyone may steal everyone else's food. If everyone can steal everyone else's food why should I work to earn food? I would be a utter and complete fool to plow a field and plant a garden when I simply can steal someone else's food legally from their field and garden. Eventually when everyone steals from everyone else very few individuals work and societies collapse. Human nature is very simple, we are by nature selfish, and when I say selfish I mean we all act in what we perceive to be in our own best interest. Until we are all angels, we will always have varying degrees of selfishness. Unfortunately, one cannot force morality, morality has to be taught, understood, and comprehended that to be moral is in one's own best interest. It is good to help the poor, care for the needy, etc. because it helps ground us, it helps bring us closer to God, etc. It is something we should all do. And that is what religion does for us, it teaches us how to be moral. Forcing one to be moral is actually the anti-thesis of being moral. Forcing one to give to the poor, to feed the hungry is immoral. It takes away the ability to choose, it takes away all the self-benefits of giving to the poor. When we give to the poor voluntarily, we feel good, we know we have done God's will, etc. A whole host of benefits are given to both the giver and the receiver. When it is forced, the giver and receiver are diminished instead of enhanced. When boiled down to it's simplistic form one must ask at what point is it morally just and right to force someone to do something (regardless of whether they want to do it or not). I argue that it is only morally just to force someone to do something when they have (without provocation or reason) forced someone else to do something. When we take away all the emotional strings to UHC, what it really boils down to is force. UHC uses the power of the gun to force individuals to do something. It takes away free agency and the power to choose to not do something. Satan's plan is well alive in today's world, he wanted to force everyone to do what was right so that no one would be lost. The thing he didn't realize is that by doing so everyone would be lost.

Who is the we? It has nothing to do with not caring if they suffer or die, it is the immutable fact of life that besides air nothing in life is unlimited (one might even argue breathable air is limited). And because everything is limited, especially in health care, someone will suffer, someone will die because they did not get what they needed. Because health care is a limited resource rationing will occur and when I say rationing I mean someone will suffer because they did not receive the care they needed. To my knowledge, only 3 ways exist to ration a finite resource, you either ration by price, ration by parts, or you ration by time. In all these situations someone suffers. If you ration by price someone cannot afford it, if you ration by time someone will suffer who would not have suffered had price existed, if you ration by parts someone will suffer because they receive less than they would have otherwise. I'd love for everyone to have their own in-home personal doctor that cures every ail, but until we are living in paradise it won't happen without penalizing someone at the expense of someone else.

I would argue that no health care is not a right. IMO when talking about health care as a right people in general do not distinguish between negative and positive rights. If health care is a right it is most definitely a positive right. I would argue that positive rights can only come about at the infringement of negative rights. Many of the arguments for universal health care are trying to solve the problem of positive rights with more positive rights. For example, the reason health care is tied to employment in this country is because of the government and the IRS. Why Tie Health Insurance to a Job? - WSJ.com So for the 1st bullet point by the OP, for health care to be untied from employment would require a rewrite of the tax code. Besides the emotional claim that health care prevents me from buying "things I need".The 2nd bullet point is again because of government regulations. The same goes for the 3rd bullet point, swap health care for raising a family. Universal Health Care is a social policy. I would argue that it is very different than police, fire, infrastructure, etc. All of those are operated at a very local level that provides the best ability of the individuals directly involved to interact with those providing the service. I understand the desire of individuals to provide for those less fortunate and I too have the same desire; but UHC will actually do less for the less fortunate, it will-over time-cause a lower level of health care than would have otherwise been available had it not been implemented. The number one issue with health care right now is price transparency-there is none. In no other interaction in ones daily life does one have so little information about what things cost. In order to have a functioning health care system the consumer of the good must know what it costs. Everything comes with costs and benefits. Should I do x or y, without price, should I get metal fillings or white fillings. So many options exists that without price it is impossible to determine the best solution. Oh well someone will say they should get the best operation . . . well what determines what is the "best" operation. The one the is the cheapest, the one that heals the best, the one that has the least side-effects??? Who makes the decision and how?. Without price one cannot determine value!! It is why Socialism fails, should we produce 1 million blue shoes or 1 million blue shirts, it is impossible to make that determination without price. It's why price controls do not work and cause shortages. And UHC is a form of price control. Not only will UHC cause a lower standard of health care it will cause lower morals and ethics. Charity no longer exists as charity when it is forced by threat. Forcing individuals to pay for someone else's health care will make society less willing to give to others. In fact, by having UHC one deprives individuals of the opportunity to be more charitable than they currently are.

I'll add my 2 cents. Rule #1) If you haven't saved enough money for a 20% downpayment you have no business buying a home. Rule #2) If you don't plan on staying there at least 3 years you have no business buying a home. Rule #3) A house is an expense. Unless you plan on renting it out, it is an expense. Period! Rule #4) Get out of debt and out from under a mortgage ASAP!!! you either rent from somebody or you rent from the bank, either way until you own outright you're still blowing money. Rule #5) Don't feel "pressured" by the market, there is always another one out there. I have a more "traditional" view on housing as compared to the last 10 years and I'm not that old (30s). I have my own thoughts on the housing system (basically the only way a 30 year mortgage makes any fiscal sense is through the "magic" of inflation-and more specifically wage inflation, and mortgages aren't paths to freedom but a path to death). Mortgage means "death pledge", i.e. you pay it until you are either dead or it is paid off. I would say before one buys a house one must think about their long-term goals, what exactly do you want in life? What is the end goal? If you don't know where you want to be fiscally in 30/40 years you'll never get there. I personally believe that for a 1st home, it is very, very good to have a "starter" home, especially if one is going from an apartment complex/condo to owning. There is stuff that needs to be fixed and done all the time. It is entirely possible to bite of more than one can chew in housing. I came very, very close to doing that for my 1st house; starting out you don't need a 5 bdr/3 bath 3500sqft. I thank my lucky stars all the time I didn't buy that house (everything was signed, I just walked on it). More house to take care of, more to heat, more things to go wrong. I know for me (and I think this is probably true for a lot of starter outers), I subconsciously wanted a house like my parents. I wanted the end result but not all the pain and sacrifice they went through to get it, I was being very selfish. I'd forgotten we didn't have carpet for over 5 years, that the house was half-finished for 10, etc. . . . silly me. I personally dislike the term starter home, though, buy a home that is comfortable for 3-5 years-or I should say for an appropriate time frame-trying to forecast longer than 5 years can get very tricky-especially starting out. In today's economy, one of the key drivers in staying employed is mobility, one must be able to go where the jobs are; it is much easier to sell lower end homes than higher end homes if one needs to move quickly. My own personal story, I used to live in one of the highest COL areas in the country and with my wife and 2 kids we rented the absolute bare minimum that we could to lower the rent payments and save as much money as humanly possible -- Those were some xtremely difficult years. We finally moved (after about 5 years) to a much lower cost of living area. I took all that savings and bought outright, nothing fancy, old brick home with good bones, sufficient for our needs. Now with no mortgage payment, I can save like nobody's business, in 24 months I've been able to save what took me 5 years to do (pay is equivalent) with rent. Best of all is if something happens to me, wife is taken care of kids taken care of- no worries about payments or other junk. Now with more kids, I'm looking at moving on up. Best of all is b/c I own my house outright and I've saved money I have at least a 20% downpayment for the bigger house without needing to sell this one. So now I have maximum flexibility, sell this one + cash and buy bigger house for cash or rent this house and use the rent to pay my mortgage for the next house while still saving tons of money for the house after that - which will hopefully be the end house goal. If something happens with my job, I can sell at a moments notice without worrying about the mortgage and go buy somewhere else. The peace of mind is priceless. If you can't tell I really hate mortgages. I think the average time that people move is every 7 years; With a 30 year mortgage one really hasn't paid off much of the loan after 7 years. So if one is continually moving every 7 years one will never pay of the loan (i.e. every 7 years get a new 30 year mortgage). Debt can be used wisely. For example, if one KNEW that you were living in a particular house for 30 years; with interest rates insanely low I could see that side; or if the loan payment is extremely low compared to monthly income (i.e. < 10%). Or for example in my case, I'd probably get a 30 year on a new house and let the rental income pay the mortgage. However, if one is relatively young, starting out in a career one wants maximum flexibilty. . . But that is just my 2 cents from some random internet dude who probably doesn't know what he's talking about; oh and please no one take offense, none was intended.