NightSG

No comments on the irony of the Peroxide Princess in the signing video?

Not quite the whole picture - our educational institutions conspired with the government to create Student Loans and then our educational institutions deliberately created ways that they could obtain monies void of any responsibility or accountability.  Our government did not think this up on their own - and the great secret is - that they never do.
 
The Traveler

Everyone needs help when a catastrophic event occurs to threaten someone's health and live - but that is what insurance and the government should do.   Help where there are catastrophic uncommon events.  Each individual should be responsible for day to day - week to week and year to year standard and normal events.  When insurance or government are expected to cover normal and expected things - individual liberty and justice is always the price paid - the money involved is just an illusion of benefit. 
 
The Traveler

This is the EXACT SAME THING with College Student Loans.  Government created the problem in the first place through student grants and government subsidies and now the Dems are now clamoring to "fix the problem" by telling people who succeeded without going to college or succeeded after paying off their student debt to pay other people's massive student loans because... hey, why not?

Those that cannot care for themselves must be cared for - handing them cash is not caring.  Turning over control to the highests federal levels of government is not caring either.  There appears to be at least 5 kinds of poor - each with very different needs.  A one size fits all attitude is obviously broken at the start.
The two biggest health care problems in the USA is overweight and lack of exercise.  The two primary government supported treatments are drugs and surgery.   The USA has the best catastrophic emergency care in the world but for anything else the government has not helped but rather disconnected individuals from personal responsibility.  A person that can not or does not take personal responsibility - there is no liberty or freedom nor can there be.  The biggest threat to liberty and freedom in the USA is our own government.
That is exactly the point - why should we think our government stands for liberty and justice for all when we have FRIENDLY relationships with countries that brutally oppress what our government stand for and upholds?  Plus we should have learned from experience that oppressive and corrupt governments (like Castro - Cuba) will only help and assist criminal elements to migrate from their country to anywhere else.  They certainly will not assist those that desire in any way to change or usurp their power from succeeding in going anywhere that they could continue in any way from being and influence in the world.  Brutal dictators just are not that stupid - else they would have never achieved the power that they have.
Our education institutions are failing - the primary reason as I see it - is that control has been shifted for the local levels to federal levels.  The highest paid individuals in our education institution do not teach but insure that the local schools qualify for federal monies and meet federal standards.  What happens in the classroom cannot endure and maintain any level of education success when the focus is somewhere else.
Almost never are problems so complex that simple solutions cannot work.  It is a play by oppressors to make simple things to appear to be too complex and unrelated to reality.  The truth is that reality is very simple when the truth is not being hidden or ignored.  The two primary political parties are more devoted to party politics than to the citizens they are supposed to serve.   I have recommended over and over that the short pamphlet "The Law" by Frederic Bastiat be read - it is over 200 years old and still applies as if it was written today - you really should read it.  Then lets have this conversation again.
 
The Traveler

Amen brother. Before Obamacare was passed, I actually was able to use my health insurance. It wasn't perfect but it worked and kept me healthy. Since then my costs have skyrocketed, I can no longer afford to go to the doctor despite being insured (I panicked when I was seriously bit by a dog because I didn't have the thousand dollars it cost me to go to the hospital), and my quality of life has taken a big nosedive. Government isn't the solution it's the problem.

Not to worry; there are plenty of sources for powder and ball, many with excellent shipping policies.  You may, however, want to get with local cannon enthusiasts and split a 25lb case of powder, as the hazmat fees on single pound orders are a bit rough.

I think you are right, but I also don't recall ever seeing a curriculum manual that explicitly says, "We hear of some of you using chewed gum object lessons in your chastity lessons. Don't use them because they are false." It sometimes seems like our curriculum materials don't often disavow false teachings of yesterday. Maybe that's all that is needed sometimes. Or maybe those kinds of things fall under "teacher training". It sometimes seems like we are so resistant to any kind of "let's look at how we are teaching the gospel (formally and informally) and see if we can make improvements" when it comes to these kinds of topics. I think there are improvements that could be made.

We had the lesson. Had some MLM bashing.
Nature of the companies bad or not, I am rather skeptical of them. I've seen too many horror stories. Know someone who lost their home. Know several people who signed up to be stay-at-home moms, yet kids live at daycare while moms spend all waking hours working the biz.
I think their culture contributes to mom-shaming. You're bad if you work outside the home, you're bad if you stay at home but don't contribute. One friend is beating herself up because her business didn't bring financial success.
I also associate them with prosperity gospel. "We are doing the Lord's work" "God wants me to be successful and rich". "I will show the world how God financially blesses me" Some even delve into idol worship. Ignore your family's needs while teaching them to look forward and value some vague future financial dream.
Recently I've seen a trend of culling FB friends to those only celebrating your business.
And of course the guilting of people to help one reach a goal.
I also am privy to a situation where a woman quit her MLM but is now being harassed by her upline in her ward.
Ah, you say, but not everyone is like that. No, but I think the culture of these easily gets toxic. As @anatess2 said, some business non-talents cause the problems, but wow, a lot of recruiters spread lore of "it's easy!"

Well, there are two reasons I can think of: 
1. It’s not always possible to bring food you make at home.
2. Sometimes, you’re just in the mood for a greasy cheeseburger.

Hmmmmmmm - so being with the one you love is not so important - just love whoever it is you are with at any given moment.    I have observed individuals like that and it does not seem to work out very well for anybody.  I guess it is the engineer side of me but there are not a lot of people that I would want to cuddle and even those that I do - there are times it is - for lack of a better expression - not always convenient. 
 
The Traveler

$1000 a month for every person?   That seriously lost me.  Do people really think these plans are feasible?  Or that the economy will not implode?

The three most wealthy guys I know in this area drive Ford or Dodge pickups. Two have crazily expensive houses with all the luxuries, while the third (the carpenter from before, who turned out to have a real talent for sales) has a 1,200 square foot normal looking house on 600 acres. His wife refuses to let him hire a maid so he built just enough to have what he wanted and two guest bedrooms for when their kids visit. She spends tens of thousands a year redecorating it, and he has a gun collection worth more than I could begin to add up, but meet them anywhere other than the range and they're the typical retired-to-the-country middle class couple. 

Biggest problem I see with attracting women want money is that even the most successful people usually fail a few times.  Nearly all of the $10M+ net worth people I've known have been flat broke, deep in debt and living out of a car or on a friend's couch at least once between making their first million and getting to where they are. Precisely one managed to keep the wife he had through that period, because they got married before he had any success,  when he was a carpenter who spent most nights in the back of his truck or in houses he was working on.  
All the others have had at least one divorce resulting from the broke times. Which pretty much confirms gold diggers are dumb, too; you don't cash in a stock that previously performed well when it's at an all-time low. 

Anybody smart would use that list to rule out 2,500 gold diggers, then sell it to both other smart guys wanting to do the same and to guys looking for a list of hot women that will likely put out for a rich enough guy if they think it will give them an edge getting a life of luxury.

It strikes me as some kind of advertising stunt. Some kind of hoopla to then turn around and introduce the new www.(insert) singles. com 
Edit: just read the article and saw the billboard for the first time.  Yes, marketing stunt. 

From the press release:
I'd have to get those top 10 reasons before entering, and they'd have to be very good ones. Because what I see is that he is leading with his millionaire status, which implies he thinks his money is his most important attribute and/or he thinks that is what I as a woman find most important. If #1, we would not get along. And #2 is insulting. Or maybe he just wants a woman who values his millionaire status, in which case I'm not the one for him.
I hope, and sort of think, that is not an accurate impression, but it's strong enough that I would never even consider applying (or whatever the correct term is for this situation). Plus the whole responding to a personal ad on a billboard feels unsafe to me, though I can't figure out exactly why that would be worse than personals columns (do those still exist?) or online dating.

Ah yes basing your future marriage entirely on the properties of your bank account. No doubt this man and his wife to be will enjoy many long days of bliss until they inevitably divorce 2-3 months later. Cheers!

"Excuse me sir."
 

I tend to be leary of what Canadians consider Violence.  I mean, this is a country who thinks calling you the wrong pronoun is Violence.  So, what exactly happened?  They accidentally bumped into each other in the hallway and ended up in fisticuffs?

Good reminder.
Also good to pull part of my reply on that thread:  "Not having a firearm because you rely on police officers and soldiers to defend your life is the highest degree of eliticism.  It’s a lot higher than leaving the cleaning of your toilet to the maid service.”
That pretty much sums up my thoughts on the 2nd Amendment.

I'm a bit surprised when people cannot see the connection, particularly Americans whose nation developed out of breaking the chains of religious oppression, and the casting off of government through violent means.
It's one thing to say that God will protect our religious freedoms, but quite another to say the same after having given away the means God gave us to protect those freedoms. If a government comes in and simply takes away the people's ability to defend their rights then that's on the government. But then if people actually support the government disarming them it's on the people when their more precious rights are later stripped.
Yes, one is direct, the other is not. But the requirement for the protection of rights draws a clear connection.

If the government tries to disarm the populace it's going to destroy the nation in ways that Row v Wade couldn't even imagine.

I find little openly objectionable about this article, and I agree with Tanner's conclusion that obedience to God trumps all. But the way he presents the issue contains "tells" that suggest he's in the anti-gun camp and that he thinks those in the pro-gun camp are simply wrong.
Why is this discouraging? Why do I even care? Because lip service is not enough for societal discourse, including in Church society. Arguments for or against a position, if presented, should be reasonably representative of those groups who hold them. In this, Tanner fails when he cites the people of Ammon (Anti-Nephi-Lehies) as an example of how it's righteous to completely disarm.
Let's be clear. By their own admission, and uncontradicted by anyone else, the people of Ammon were filthy murderers. They had literally had the blood of innocent Nephites on their hands. Killing Nephites was sport to them. These people were lost to such a degree that surely their redemption must stand as one of the greatest miracles in all of scripture.
Why did they abandon their weapons of war? Because they were desperate to do anything—ANYTHING—to rid their garments of the blood they had spilt. They were perfectly willing to suffer death at the hands of their enemies (brothers) than ever to kill anyone else, ever, for any reason. It's worth noting that they almost transgressed this covenant, but not because they personally were threatened. They were worried about the Nephites who were dying to protect them as they refused to lift a finger. And so, of course, we get the equally miraculous history of their sons, the so-called Stripling Warriors.
Is the example of the people of Ammon burying their weapons of war and utterly refusing to lift a finger in defense of themselves or anyone else worthy to emulate? Sure, if you're a depraved murderer seeking expiation of your many murders. Otherwise, not so much.
This paragraph in particular irked me:
Guns are not implements of righteous enforcement for all people, however. For these people forgiving enemies and turning backs to smiters are more than platitudes, they are principles for living the peaceable life of a disciple of Christ. The people of Ammon are commonly cited as perfect examples of forsaking weapons of war.
The clear, unavoidable implication is that pro-gunners take the teachings to forgive enemies and turn your back to smiters as mere "platitudes". This is so false and unfair as to be criminal really, really frustrating. For that matter, I am convinced that a non-insignificant minority of the anti-gunners are simply cowards, looking to justify their cowardice by painting it as peacemaking.
I am a pro-gunner in principle, and actually do own some rifles. I am ill-trained and would be at a great disadvantage if I had to use a rifle to defend myself or my family. I am not a "gun nut" or a "gun lover". But I understand perfectly well the Second Amendment argument: Possession of defensive weapons is a God-given right that any righteous government must defend. Sometimes that makes me a little uncomfortable; frankly, I don't trust my next-door neighbors quite that much.
But "living with risk" has another name: "living". Is firearm possession a God-given right? The US Constitution says so, and until that amendment is repealed or modified, I don't see how the issue can proceed forward. It's easy enough, anti-gunners: Just get a majority in 38 states to agree with you, and modify the Constitution. Don't take the vomitous, dishonest, and nation-destroying path of Roe v Wade.

Sneak into a mid singles activity.  After a couple hours of that you'll be dragging his butt down to Vegas for a drive through wedding.