kapikui

I've had "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" stuck in my head for about a decade now. Even when it's a good song, it can get really old.

I agree with you on this with one further caveat. That after having a sexual history she's medically clean. I'm not sure that the recognition factor would even matter that much to me.

Well, it seems to me that there's a few possibilities. She accepts the gospel, an her husband does (eventually) too. Best possioble outcome She accepts the gospel and husband never does She becomes a "servant to those who did have temple marriages" (not sure this is phrasing the doctrine accurately) Probably will still have great joy. She becomes someones "50th" wife. Sounds bad given our current culture, but might not be as bad as you think once the veil is fully removed. Someone who's wife didn't make it makes her is first wife. Could happen easily. She rejects baptism and eventually becomes a servant (or whatever is done) in a lower kingdom also without marriage. Here she's in no better position than the previous option, but in a lower kingdom. It seems to me that a truly merciful or just God wouldn't condemn someone simply because someone else does not accept the gospel.

Apple basically showed that the FBI was lying through their teeth about the need for the specialized OS to hack the phone. Apple (and several others) pointed out that there was absolutely no reason that the FBI's requests were needed technically, and that even if the FBI were that so grossly incompetent (to the point of deserving defunding) as to not have the technical capabilities of cracking the phone, within about a nanosecond of the case going public, hundreds of data recovery firms would be contacting them in hopes of getting the contract recovering the data. That's what they do. There is no possible way that the FBI did not commit perjury in its court briefs, and Apple pretty much proved it. Apple showed rather conclusively that the ONLY reason the FBI could possibly "need" the things they said they did was for court precedent needs, not security needs. The FBI wanted to vastly expand it's authority. When it was pretty much shown that that's all it was about, it kind of needed to go away.

Source?

Telling a kid something like that ought to be a jailable offense. I had people tell me that crap and WOULD have killed myself and likely several others hadn't a few others told me otherwise.

I'd be willing to bet that some of the 'knowing' smiles aren't so much because they know your circumstance, but because they know by experience what you're going through. I sounds to me like your disfellowshipment was seriously mishandled. Someone with a big mouth didn't help. In general, a lot of what is interpreted a as a negative reaction or a pitying or a racist one is not because someone is condemning you, but because they are conscious of your situation and are trying not to come off as condemning.

So back to my original point, is this any different than the individuals who do the EXACT same thing about their favorite sport an if so how?

No prob, I would have felt insulted too.

Sorry Vagabond, My mistake, I was actually meaning to address that to omegamaster and his statement that things such as anime were childish. I apologize I got screen names confused. T

Vagabond, Just curious, how do you feel about sports? I would like to hear your take on how a grown man screaming and crying about "his" team on the TV when they lose (assuming he didn't bet on the game and lose a bunch of money which is both foolish and a different thing), and bragging about how "we" won when they do win, is any different than being interested in your so called "childish" things.

1. Yes, actual capitalism and "democratic" socialism are mutually exclusive. While it might look OK when they first implement it, anytime you start with socialistic actions, they spread. 2. This happens a lot. Every single time since the income tax was instituted that the tax rate has been lowered, over all tax revenue has gone up. The socialists talk about needing more money, but when pressed about it, it becomes more about "fair" than hey, we can do more good this way. There is continual hand wringing over the "wage gap" meaning that the rich are getting rich faster than the poor are getting rich. If you don't think that the modern American poor are rich, consider that it would take several thousand servants in the middle ages to provide any semblance of the lifestyle even the poorest of Americans now enjoys, and some things would just be impossible. Sanders' "plan" wouldn't work first even by his most liberal estimates of revenue raised by his tax increases, total tax revenue would be less than about half of his most conservative estimates of the total amount needed. Second, the entire idea of "closing loopholes" and "ending corporate welfare" is crap. First off, corporations don't pay taxes. If you think that they do, you need to take some basic business classes and learn how profit works. To put it in a nutshell, everything that the company has to pay out for any reason (including taxes) is a cost. Everything that they take in goes to gross profit. If profit goes down a company WILL find a way to boost it, or it goes out of business. This means that if you increase their taxes, whether you frame it as "raising tax rate", "closing a tax loophole", "making them pay their fair share" or whatever else you want to say, it doesn't really matter. The business doesn't care in the slightest how you phrase the tax increase. If it costs them more money, if they wish to continue doing business, they will find a way to make up the loss. This means that they will increase prices (costing you more when you purchase their product, essentially making you pay their taxes), reduce employees of have the work done elsewhere (increasing unemployment, and in turn welfare roles making you want to raise taxes again), or they go out of business entirely. Now a lot with socialist tendencies will say "Well they just won't get such obscene profit margins." Guess what they already don't. The overall margins on most industries when total cost of doing business is considered is in the single digit percentages. A few are a little higher, but not many. If your margin is zero, you can generally stay in business for a while, but if anything goes wrong, there's nothing to fall back on. You also can't grow your business at all. You therefore need some margin just so you can grow. If you grow you hire more people, and you sell to more people, and inject more money into the economy. Companies also need a fair amount of cash on hand. This means that if a factory burns down you can rebuild the factory rather than go out of business and lay off all of your workers. What the socialist seems to believe, perhaps not logically but certainly on a deep emotional level, is that the rich have Scrooge McDuck style money bins with all of the money they ever made and they just hoard it. They don't most of the very rich will have a nice nest egg set aside, as is only sane, but they don't like to have money sitting idle. If they can, they turn around and invest it to make them more money. They invest it in other businesses who take that money and grow their business, hiring more people. Sander's plan would essentially make hiring more people something to be punished, which would almost certainly tank the economy.

Any Scouting callings must as per BSA rules.

That depends. God's laws are perfect and run by a perfect individual. Such an organization is problematic when run by wicked people. The advantage to the U.S. constitution (as written, not as we currently "interpret" it), is that if followed, most of the populace can be wicked and still not have tyranny. A perfect organization run by a perfect individual need not have all of the deliberate inefficiencies built in to protect against such things. And would be much better. Of course until I have a 100% guarantee that only perfect individuals will run such a government, I'll take a constitutionally limited government.

B. Do you favor - 1. Graduated tax rates on income? I'm not against a graduated tax rate provided that the upper tax rate is capped at 5% or less, an that ALL other forms of taxation are prohibited. I'm not particularly against other forms of taxation, but the government should be limited in how many taxes it can levy 2. An unrestricted power in government to tax inheritances? No. I am generally against any inheritance tax, however I could be persuaded provided the total percentage was kept to single digits and all or most other taxes were eliminated. 3. A return to the gold and silver standard of the Constitution? Fun to think about, but for many reasons too numerous to list here, not realistic. 4. Federal regulation of transportation and communication businesses? The only federal regulation I'm generally for on most businesses is a total truth when making public statements with similar standards to persons under oath in a court of law. This includes advertising and sales representatives being held personally responsible for knowing lying to customers. Representatives of the company, who knowingly lie to customers or stock holders, or managers who encourage them to or feed them false information to deceive customers can be held criminally liable. 5. A system of free public education? No. C. 1. For the purpose of providing for the less fortunate, do you feel government should have the power to completely equalize all incomes? No, but I believe that people advocating for such should receive no police protection should someone consider them to be committing an act of war against the United States. 2. If not, do you believe the poor have some claim on government for their subsistence needs? Not by right. That does not mean that some government aid to the poor isn't necessarily a good idea, but there is no right as such. D. 1. Should government have the power to prohibit child labor? To some degree, child labor laws were started because children were chained to machines and made to work 16 hour days. 2. Should government have the power to set minimum wages? Minimum wage in any form is a terrible idea. 3. Should government have the power to license every economic activity? Government should have very little licensing power. 4. Should government be completely without such licensing power? Not completely without 5. If you believe in some, but not complete licensing power, indicate three trades, professions, businesses, etc. which should be licensed: a)Doctors b)Lawyers c) Critical professions for public safety (pilots?) List three which should not be licensed: a)Most everything else b) ______________________________________________ c) ______________________________________________ E. 1. Government should have the power to regulate the operation of all economic activities. Government should have very little power to regulate any economic activities except for the afore mentioned making them tell the truth. 2. Government should not have the power to regulate any legitimate economic activity. Perhaps a little, but only in extreme circumstances specifically for public safety or health. 3. If you believe in some, but not complete government regulation, do you feel you could draw a precise line between those activities which should and should not be regulated? Not precise, but there would be only a little grey area. 4. Government should have the power to set minimum standards for all goods and services. There are few if any minimum standards government should set. I haven't thought it out precisely, but the vast majority of this would be handled by the "tell the truth" provision mentioned earlier. 5. If you favor a partial, but not complete set of government standards, name three products or services for which standards should be set by government: a) Food? b) ______________________________________________ c) ______________________________________________ Name three products or services for which standards should not be set: a) ______________________________________________ b) ______________________________________________ c) ______________________________________________ F. 1. Should government have the power to bring waste lands into production and engage in soil conservation programs? Only in extreme circumstances where failure to do so results in immediate public harm. 2. Should government have the power to control natural resources such as rivers, lakes, forests and mineral deposits? Only insofar as to assure that public or common goods are not ruined by others. EG, someone upstream on a river dumping pollutants to be dealt with by those down stream or restricting stream flow. 3. Should governments sell to private individuals all the land they now own except that which is necessary for defense and protection of rights? Yes, though I would be OK with states owning some. The federal government should own none and lease the necessary land from states for a reasonable price, however in cases of national defense, the federal government may need power to compel the use of particular land if that land has critical strategic value. G. 1. I believe that there is a distinct line between those circumstances under which the government should compel people against their will and those where it should not. The line is a bit blurry, not very. 2. I believe that the scriptures provide accurate guidance regarding the distinction between good and bad laws. If they did, we'd all agree on what the good and bad laws were.

I know what you mean. I was in my 30's before I found out that occasional thoughts of suicide weren't normal.

http://www.chowhound.com/food-news/106088/no-drinks-bad-service/

I haven't read the book, but I did see a SciFi channel movie based on it. In that, he DID try to teach her to land the ship. As I recall, she was some kind of underclass in that society and was consequently almost completely uneducated she wasn't stupid, but she wasn't capable of learning everything she needed to learn in the amount of time they had.

I haven't read the book, but I did see a SciFi channel movie based on it. In that, he DID try to teach her to land the ship. As I recall, she was some kind of underclass in that society and was consequently almost completely uneducated she wasn't stupid, but she wasn't capable of learning everything she needed to learn in the amount of time they had.

Then scattered at Disneyland?

From what I've read, it actually IS just a short PIN. Their primary ask is for something that allows them to input the password multiple times without it deleting the data. It sounds exactly like they're going to try to brute force the phone. What they should do is pull the encrypted data off the phone and attack it with normal cryptoanalysis and a nice large supercomputer cluster.

Interesting. This would indicate one of two possibilities. One, that the FBI is run by a bunch of morons. and two, that the FBI doesn't really care about what's on the phone, but wants this software for another reason. Since it seems that the primary thing they want is a version of iOS that will let them make unlimited attempts to crack the pin, and utilities already exist to do that, moreover Apple almost certainly has most of what they've asked for already built. After all, such things would be almost required for testing. It seems that what the FBI is hoping for is some sort of precedent that will make it legal for them to force back doors into software.

I would disagree, the system does not corrupt people so much as it attracts corrupt people. The more power there is in government, the more corrupt it is. Everyone wants to give the government ever more power to try to counteract this corruption, but a moment's thought will show that such action can NEVER work, only result in an ever increasing spiral of corruption.

I've noticed the same thing here often. That said, the way this particular poster said things didn't sit right. Some things as reported I can't imagine any qualified councilor saying under any circumstances, let alone an LDS councilor, leading me to kind of want to call BS on the OP's post.

What is it doing?