kapikui

I keep up on the news via the internet, and use my DVR to watch the local news, skipping the weather, sports, and a great deal of the fluff. I can watch a 30 minute newscast in less than 10 minutes. Whatever you do, never trust the news. When it isn't flat out designed to promote a (usually but not always left wing) view, the reporters are almost ALWAYS lazy and uninformed if not outright stupid. Every news story I've ever seen that I've had first hand knowledge of has been about 80% wrong. Every news story out there that has anything to do with a subject I some expertese in is generally about 80% wrong about the underlying subject. Now if they're wrong this often about things I do know about, I can generally extrapolate to the news being about 80% wrong across the board. I can't remember what the story was, but I remember that I saw it on CNN and Fox and several other news sites after it made the rounds on the internet. They were all too lazy to check the original source which was The Onion.

Even the ones claiming to only state facts get rather selective about which facts they're presenting, leaving the viewer with a view rather skewed the way the "news" agency wants it to go.

I don't know about same state, but in Pocatello we had an Elder from Layton, < 2 hours down I 15.

As someone trying to start a small business, it isn't competition from larger businesses that are causing me problems. It's not running afoul of government regulations that keeps me from breaking out. As an aside, the people that benefit most from the government regulation are the large corporations, as they have the resources to comply with the byzantine regulations imposed, and such regulations have a strangling effect on smaller businesses, thus helping to get rid of the smaller competition. Making sure I don't commit a felony by forgetting to file some obscure piece of paperwork costs too much to ever go beyond a sole proprietorship business.

The wealthy socialist backers own the media outlets.

The big problem with a lot of mental disorders, whether they are neurological, chemical, hormonal, or simply behavioral is that we simply take the behaviors and responses people make and call it a disorder. Unless there is a big tumor or other rather obvious physical defect, there's still not much we understand about the brain. What we call Autism COULD be a single disorder, or it could be 50 or 100 different disorders each with a different cause and treatment. Remember when formal medicine was as old as psychology/psychiatry is now, people were still talking about humors. Our modern mental health knowledge is almost certainly almost as wrong. That's not to say it's bunk, only that we're sill learning, and have a long way to go. Even back in the days of humors, what medicine did was generally a little better than nothing, and the knowledge that was learned has led to our current medical advances.

I spent part of my mission in Maryland, and spend pretty much my entire workday talking on the phone to people all over the country. I'd say 80-90% of the people I talk to from the east don't realize there's a difference between Idaho, Iowa and Ohio. As far as they're concerned all three are the same "flyover" state.

John Moses Browning

I can tell :) Welcome and have fun.

How is controlling GOVERNMENT making SOCIETY worthless? They aren't the same thing. Government is at best a necessary evil, and exist (at least righteously) to assure that everyone's God-given rights are upheld. A powerful government simply invites corruption. The more powerful, the more corruption WILL show up. The genius of the founders was that our government can weather even extended periods of corruption with very little long-term damage. Any argument that involves "We just need to make sure the right people are in charge" leads to bondage.

Why? I have DirecTV, and I have Cable One for internet. There's no problem. The DirecTV receivers' internet functions work just fine, and Cable One has no problems with selling us only internet.

My spouse takes care of my email for me, and only tells me about it if it's something that requires my personal attention. She has more time than I do, since I work and go to school full time. She is running a photography business, but much of her work is done online, so popping over to my email is easy for her. Pretty much everything else is done the same way.

The problem with saying "Only certain groups can donate", or "Only So much can be donated" is that it isn't that hard to get around. Ever wonder why so many politicians write books? Bill Clinton's book was mostly copy/paste from other official sources, yet he sold a huge number of them. Ever wonder why? Instead of donating over the table where people can see it, you push such "donations" underground. Give me what I want, and I'll by 10,000 copies of your book. All "campaign finance" laws do is push such things underground, and let such people operate in the dark. They'll still buy the politicians, they'll just find a way around it. The way to stop politicians from being bought and sold by outside interests is to reduce their power to the point that the return on the investment isn't there.

I saw a performance of Silent Night in a Sacrament Meeting. A couple of people thought it sacrilegious to play such a song on a guitar, but really couldn't say much since the history of the song was explained beforehand.

I've used the Reina-Valera version and quite like it, but I'm guessing you just meant English translations.

Exactly, though I don't care so much about how they get moved, only that they do. My problem is with who gets them. My point is that a ban on drugs isn't the same a a ban on guns. If there is a black market on drugs and only law breakers get them (like now), I'm not in as much danger as if there's a ban on guns and only law breakers get them. Comparing the two is at best fallacious. At the same time, the argument that lifting the ban on drugs would eliminate the problems with them is problematic. Alcohol is perfectly legal, yet there are all sorts of societal ills due to its use.

Yjacket, stay off my side. There is a vast difference between the problem of drug running and gun running. If a bad person has and uses heroin (let's say), my best defense isn't to have heroin myself. My best defense is a gun. On the other hand if a bad person has a gun, my best defense is a gun. Most recreational drugs have rather little potential for use in self defense or defense against a totalitarian state (the real reason the Founding Fathers added the 2nd Amendment).

Just curious what long term goals would those be?

I guess you missed the 20 or so cargo containers full of ak-47's caught just after 9/11 entering the U.S. Bound for Mexico. It isn't going to solve anything, they'll just import just like they import drugs. And since you can make an ak-47 out of a shovel, you aren't going to stop it by a law.

I'll tell you what. YOU find out. I would prefer not to. Weapons (notice I did NOT say gun) registration ISN'T a particularly new idea either, though Democracy is. China did it (with swords), and then confiscated, then wiped out large numbers of people, and they did it a large number of times over the course of their history. The simple unarguable fact is that once a people is disarmed, genocide becomes far easier. Let's look. Austria, the Netherlands and Sweden are all in Europe. How long since there was a Genocide attempt there? 60 years or so? Do you really think it can't happen again? No wait, we have Kosovo that was what 15 years ago or so? War spreads out over Europe (the place liberals seem to think is so civilized) regularly, and every time it does people are disarmed and can't fight back. The genocide doesn't have to come from the same country or even the same regime. Hitler didn't disarm anyone in Germany. He didn't have to, the regime he overthrew did the job for him, and did it for altruistic reasons. They had no intention of carrying out a genocide. Hitler came along and simply took advantage of it. He didn't disarm anyone in Poland, yet a previously disarmed people couldn't fight back. Your other countries listed are in South America. Also not exactly a stable environment. All it would take is for a border to change a bit and the people displaced could easily get wiped out.

Every single case of weapons registration in human history has led to disarmament. If yours hasn't YET, then good for you. If it never does, you will be an anomaly. Worse, every single case of disarmament in human history has led to genocide eventually. Not always by the people who did the disarmament, but always against the disarmed. A leads to B, ALWAYS. B leads to C ALWAYS. Sure it MIGHT not, but if things keep happening the same way again and again, chances are they'll keep happening that way.

I saw a "boxing" match male vs female. The female was the top female boxer in the world. The male was a literally a horse jockey who had no boxing experience. She had at least 50 pounds on him and almost 2 feet. That she cleaned his clock was used as "proof" that women can compete with men no matter what.

How could it not be?

Maybe I'm just getting old (I do remember when primary was during the week), but what does TR mean? EDIT: Temple Recommend?

I'd rather have the flaming bag of poo.