anatess2

NightSG, you just won the internet.

NightSG, you just won the internet.

Or a die-hard pacifist.

I disagree. And yes, I have an opinion on everything. Ensoulment is completely up to God. Nobody, not even you, can tell Him not to put a soul on a 1-day-old fetus.

The #1 reason for not pulling her out of school: The daughter wants it. That said... there's a reason why the daughter wants it. Figure that question out. If it's the friends, social exposure, I feel free to make my own decisions and grow as a sappling with my own slice of sunlight underneath the towering oak... then see if you can provide her with that same need somewhere else that is not this school. See if she'll agree to it. Note: School (Pubic or Otherwise) is not just the 3R's... that you can do at home. And judging by how terrible her grades are, I suggest the mom continue to work with her on the academics even as she's attending public school. The other learning experience in School (Public or Otherwise) is learning to succeed in the face of great odds - you know, learning how to get an A with a bad teacher... think of the movie Clueless. She's old enough to be grounded in morals. She can be let out of the safe space. Reinforce the morals at home together with the 3Rs. Trust me - it is better that she deal with the militant homosexuals while she can still run home to mama than later on when she's completely on her own. And yeah... go find her a public School of the Arts. There's got to be one in Seattle somewhere. That's where she belongs. The militant homosexuals flock to the arts schools, yes... but, as my 14-year-old tells me almost everyday... they're not quite mature enough to win an argument with me... and they know I'm an orange belt in jiujitsu.

Yes, that's why it's a debate... because there's no certainty. What I'm answering to the PC's OP on this one is the "middle ground". The middle ground is to junk the pro-choice/pro-life debate. The middle ground is to shift to the When Does Life Begin debate. Gain a consensus on that. Colorado tried to pass a Personhood bill a couple years ago (or was it last year?)... it failed in State Congress. Let's keep the debate there and forget about abortion. Florida has a law that if you kill a pregnant woman that results in the death of the baby, you killed 2 people. Hillary - avowed pro-choicer - called the fetus a Person just a few weeks ago. There ya go... then, in this debate, try to keep it on the respectful, reasoned give-to-Ceasar way instead of flooding it with tons of vitriol. Then it's like a Do-over. Clean Slate.

I'm not gonna wait until after Cleveland. I'll start putting this up there. There is a very strong likelihood he's going to get 1,237 before the first ballot. He needs 495 to get to majority - he's going to get over 100 by end of April. He'll get over 100 in May, He'll get over 100 in June. Then the practitioner of the Art of the Deal will make a play for the rest of the needed votes on the unbound delegates before the 1st ballot. He has all the toys to make this so - ride to the convention on the Trump Plane, spend the week before the convention at the Trump Towers, zipping to the golf courses before going to Cleveland... he'll have all day everyday to talk to them about his position on the issues with full-on Donald charm. Remember Romney's effusive praise of the Mar-a-lago? Yeah... that one. Yes, Cruz's flawless victory on the ground game can make a play for these delegates as well... but, he needs too many to win the 1st ballot. His only chance is the 2nd ballot. But yes, if Trump has to go to 2nd ballot, the favor is going to swing to Cruz... and this is when Cruz will feel how it feels to be Donald Trump... because this is when the establishment will screw him over. So this post is not just to get you guys to see through the demagoguery of Trump - this is also to get you to see through the NeverTrumpers to their real objectives. So... from what you're saying... Trump has no fundamental backbone. I beg to differ. Watch these videos in succession and you will see consistency in whatever political climate he happens to be in. Trump on Free Trade in 1988... this is on the tail end of the Reagan presidency: Trump stating the same thing on Free Trade with a little detail on what he would do if he was in charge of things back in 2010 in an Obama presidency: Romney stating Trump's expertise on the same Free Trade issue in 2012 on Romney's campaign: Even more details now on this same exact issue on his 2016 Presidential run (first 3 minutes or so):

The Catholics believe that Life begins when the sperm fertilizes the egg. No, it doesn't have to be implanted on the uterus at that point. This is the point of Creation where the body AND the spirit simultaneously exists. This is easy to legislate since the sperm fertilizing the egg is a scientifically observable event. The LDS (for which I'm one) believe that Life begins when the spirit joins the body sometime between conception and birth. Of course, this is not as easily legislated because you can't legislate Faith unless you can tie it to a societal good. So, how do LDS express their Faith through Legislation? Well, there's the pro-Choice way - where they leave the decision to the mother and her clergy and her doctor... and there's the pro-Life way - where they take the decision out of the mother/clergy/doctor and put it on the rule of law. As you can see, the When Does Life Begin question is the crux of the matter. Not abortion.

Nothing. That's why the When Does Life Begin is the better debate. Because there's no question that when life begins, the death of that life gets covered by all the already existing laws that protect that life. So, when Congress finally figures out the definition of Life, then the rest of the debate on abortion is moot.

Yes, I prefer Carson over everybody else. Yes, I preferred Gingrich over Romney. It didn't stop me from housing Romney volunteers in my house to win Florida in the general. After Carson, I wanted Scott Walker - but he ran out of money fast. Cruz versus Trump - I prefer Trump. I don't believe Cruz qualifies for POTUS because of his birth. Look, I am Filipino married to an American birthing kids in Florida. They have dual citizenship - they are Natural Born Americans but they are NOT Natural Born Filipinos - it required an act of Philippine Congress to make them so. That's the same for Cruz - he is born in Canada to a Cuban dad (turned Canadian 2 years after Cruz' brith) and an American mom. He is born an American Citizen through an act of Congress. Think about this - if the San Bernardino couple would have birthed a child in the Middle East raised as a jihadist... under Cruz's interpretation of the law, that kid qualifies to be the President of the USA... you might think, oh, he's never going to get elected! Think again... Utah just voted an avowed Socialist in big numbers... My 2nd reason - his resume has no executive experience - just like Obama's. My 3rd reason - I want him to be appointed in the SCOTUS to take over Scalia's robes, if not, then I want him debating all day long in Congress - that's what he's really good at - the law, the Constitution, and debating. He is the perfect guy to make laws in the Legislative branch - I need him to kick butt there. But yes, if he's the nominee, I'll be working in his campaign office in Florida. Trump versus Kasich - not much preference either way... Trump has an edge because of his foreign policy... but I'm not yet sure if I really want that foreign policy... I'm still mulling over it. I know I don't like Bush's which is Kasich's. That's about it. I will answer the 3rd paragraph in several posts after this. The answer to this question is the reason for this thread. If the NeverTrump movement never happened in the primaries, I wouldn't be talking about this in the primaries. Remember this: The NeverTrump movement are not pro-Cruz. If you're a Cruz voter, you need to pay close attention to what the NeverTrumpers are trying to pull off.

On that note.... The Philippines currently have a Presidential Candidate who is promoting Federalism. This is the stupidest thing ever presented to the Filipino people. The Presidential Candidate promoting United States Statehood, all of a sudden, sounds sane. Why this is... The Philippine provinces (that will become the States) are mostly homogenous to each other in both cultural, social, and economic make-up. The few that are non-homogenous are the ones promoting an Islamic State (so they can wage jihad). This Presidential Candidate happens to come from an economically prosperous province. He does not want to continue having his province send all their tax revenues to the Capital only to receive a small percentage in return as the money gets spent in other provinces that are not as prosperous. This is not a valid reason for Federalism. Federalism should not be used to break a truly One Nation into autonomous parts. Rather Federalism should be used to make One Nation out of already established autonomous parts.

I know you're asking LeSellers but I'm going to chime in with my answer. "Senators have been selected by popular vote for a century now." - yes. But they don't have to be. Each State decides who their Senators are going to be - it just so happens that all 50 choose their Senators, just like they choose their governors - by popular vote. But, the spirit of the Senator is that he represents the State... not the people. That's why each State has an equal number of Senators - 2. Each State gets the same voting power in the Senate regardless of their population size. "Isn't it time to update the system to reflect the vox populi?" No it is not, and it never will be unless the States decide that they're going to cede the welfare of their State to the Federal government. One thing that you will need to realize - the United States may be referred to as One Nation... but, technically, it is 50 Nations (not counting the Indian Nations). The laws in New York does not work in Nebraska, for example. Nor the laws in Texas work in Vermont. Removing the electoral college (or the Senate) will effectively silence Nebraska in the face of New York, or Vermont in the face of Texas. "Do you want your State's electors voting as a bloc? Representative distribution? By district? Voting independently?" That's up to each State to decide. A State doesn't have to hold Federal Presidential Elections even. They can always just have the Governor decide who he wants as POTUS. So the population votes for the Governor that will then decide the POTUS. There are no states that do this. All the states hold general elections. If you ask me what I want in my State (I'm not American so it won't matter) - I want the State Congress to vote the POTUS in the general elections and I want the people to select the nominee to the general elections in closed party primaries.

Well, it offers a contradiction which makes the claim that he is the Son of God questionable. Basically, Christians have to explain how the Messiah prophecy of the Messiah coming from David's loins is fulfilled when Christians claim he is the Son of God and not the son of Joseph. Basically - what's the purpose of God giving these clues to the prophets that we may know Christ when He comes when God would just turn around and ignore the prophecies He gave. The Messianic Jews, like the LDS, believe that this specific prophecy is fulfilled through the genealogy in Luke and not in Matthew. The genealogy in Luke is Mary's line. Yes, Jewish tradition runs blood lineage through the Father (the claim of the traditional Jews that reject Christ as the Messiah)... but as Jesus only has the blood of Mary and not the blood of a father, then the lineage has to go through Mary, eschewing Jewish tradition.

Hi optimistic... Hello! Okay, this is my 2 cents. You're in Alaska - so that's the USA. Heavily Regulated Market Capitalist. The only reason why you would go into business is if you intend to work towards some profit. Otherwise, you are better off doing what you want to do outside of business. Business requires lots of legalities and regulations and taxation, etc. etc. that you will have to deal with to perform whatever it is you want to perform. This is well and good if you use business for its intent - profit - in the execution of your desired service. Without profit, you're going to run yourself to the ground and possibly have lots of legal repercussions along the way, especially since your intended business has to do with personal interactions with people... who has the means to sue you in court. So, if you plan to make a profit out of your service, then yes, a business is your avenue. Note that there is nothing unChristian-like about profit - or money. What makes it unChristianlike is HOW you made the profit and HOW you spent the profit. As long as both of those are aligned with Christ, you're pleasing to God. Good luck.

Thank you for the answer to the first question. The 2nd question came from an argument I got to witness between a traditional Jew and a Messianic Jew. I used to work with this Israeli company and they are all Jews but there was one Jew who is Christian... they were talking about the prophecy of the Messiah and the traditional Jew was saying that Jesus couldn't have been the Messiah prophesied because of several prophetic claims unrealized - one of which that as Christians believe Jesus is not the blooded son of Joseph then he couldn't have fulfilled the prophecy of lineage from David through Joseph's line as outlined in the book of Matthew in the New Testament.

The middle ground is to send the Pro-Choice/Pro-Life discussions to the forgotten realms. If you're pro-Life, stop debating making abortions illegal. If you're Pro-Choice, stop debating abortions remain legal. Just stop. Drop it. Send it to the ether of obscurity. Here's the new debate... WHEN DOES LIFE BEGIN? After that's decided, then the Constitutional protection of inalienable rights will take over.

Everything you say is valid for a Cruz versus Trump. Don't vote Trump in the Primaries... vote Cruz. Or Kasich... or whoever. Everything you say needs to be re-evaluated for a Hillary versus Trump in the General Elections. That's the point of this thread. Trump's unfavorables is largely due to the Never Trump campaign. If the Republicans worked even just half as hard as they have in trying to beat Trump against Obama in 2008 and 2012, they would have succeeded in a landslide. Have you ever heard of a Never Obama campaign? The problem with the Never Trump campaign is they have successfully shot themselves in the foot and convinced even die-hard Republicans such as PC and yourself to accept Republican party defeat if Trump becomes the nominee. They've successfully made Trump a caricature that is a baton that is easily handed over to the Democrats in a general if it fails in the primaries. This is completely unprecedented in modern party history. What's more - not only have they successfully painted Trump as this caricature, they have also successfully painted Trump voters as this caricature so much so that it would be nigh impossible to bring these people back to the party that hates them - when somebody else other than Trump comes out on top in the convention. I am pretty sure you are not fine with Hillary. I am not fine with Hillary and I'm not even American. Hence, the purpose of this thread.

That's the point of this thread. The "vindictive, short-tempered, incompetent, racist, bigot, sexist etc. etc." labels are thrown around by the media in the same manner that the same accusations are made by Democrats of any Republican through the media. Was Romney a Sexist because he has binders of women? Or that he's cruel because he put his dog on the top of his car? Of course not... but that's how that image gets ingrained into people's psyche... I'm putting out the video for you to see what other people see in Trump. Take the time to watch it from beginning to end. There are several more videos out there that show this side of him. I'll put them out here later. Hillary is competent. That is true. She will competently take the country down the wrong road. And that's a guarantee. National Review's gripe is that Trump is not Conservative. Their enemy in 2012 was Newt Gingrich - because Gingrich worked with Bill Clinton - which makes him not Conservative enough for them. The Trumpsters like Jeff Sessions, Jam Brewer, Allan West, Rick Scott, and Sarah Palin - poster children of Tea Party conservatism - know he's not Conservative. They also know he's not liberal. They know he can champion Conservatism because even as he can't define what Conservative means, his instinctive ideals is more Conservative than Liberal - so much so that he's more Conservative than Kasich without even knowing it nor trying. But then, the stupidity of National Review is they have the conservative golden boy in Ted Cruz... but they didn't endorse Cruz... rather, they only warmed up to Cruz when it became evident that Cruz is the only one who can stop Trump... so they're backing Cruz as an anti-Trump endorsement rather than a pro-Cruz endorsement.... Cruz - golden boy of conservatism... rejected by National Review. Yep. We could have had Cruz as the presumptive nominee today if conservatives like National Review and Mitt Romney would have ran a pro-Cruz campaign instead of an anti-Trump campaign. Idiots.

Now, as far as the RNC and DNC rules in electing their General Election Nominee: The RNC and DNC are private entities that make their own rules. The RNC rules are formed in the same pattern as the Republic (they're called Republican for a reason). In a Republic, the people choose their Representatives and the Representatives cast the votes to represent the will of the people. It's not the party bosses nor the people that choose the nominees, it's the Representatives (i.e., delegates). The current rule is that the candidate has to get a majority of the delegate votes to become the GE nominee. The delegates convene and caucus and cast multiple rounds of ballots until a majority is arrived at. The problem with this system occurs when the people are deprived of choosing a delegate to represent the will of the people (like if states let the party bosses or candidates choose the delegate by silencing the will of the people he represents instead of caucusing with them to give the delegate the opportunity to convince the people of the right choice and in the end choosing the candidate that is a reflection of the will of the people). Or when the party bosses or candidate chooses a delegate for a group of people who has no intention of carrying out the expressed will of the people he represents (unbound delegates - including those that get unbound on succeeding ballots). This is when the republican (small R) system is at risk of getting corrupted by sleazy or opportunistic politicians. The DNC has a different rule. They follow the Democratic process (they're called Democrats for a reason). The DNC gives every group of people a delegate bound to their will. This delegate cannot be unbound (no 2nd ballot or 3rd ballot, etc. that can unbind them). To prevent mob rule, they assign a group of super delegates who do not represent the will of the people - rather, they are the "experts" or "voice of wisdom". So, it's completely like Dancing With The Stars where the judges are the super delegates and their scores get added to the people's votes to prevent someone who suck at dancing win the trophy purely out of popularity. The super delegates can provide a risk of corruption in the DNC side as they can be wined and dined and bought by candidates instead of expertly choosing the candidate that would best represent the party platform. Third parties have their own rules of choosing their GE nominees as well.

100% correct. The GOVERNOR, is the President of the State. Each State decide - in their own State Constitutions - how they're going to select the POTUS. They also decide - in that same State Constitution - how they're going to elect the President of their State (Governor). The Feds can't dictate that to them without having to amend the US Constitution. States Rights and all that...

I just want to point out that a Covenant is not a promise you make to your husband. A Covenant is a promise you make to God. In that Covenant, you promised to bring your husband (and your children) with you closer to Christ. That's what it means to Love somebody. So... your husband is not cooperating in your attempts to bring him with you closer to Christ. That's ok. That's his free agency. But, it shouldn't cause you to give up... Endure to the end, remember? He may be currently breaking his promise to God and is on the way to walking to the big and spacious building.... but that's his own covenant... that doesn't have to change yours. I've said this plenty of times here on lds.net... Because of my promise to God in my marital covenant, if I ever wake up one day to find out my husband is a serial killer, it wouldn't change my marital covenant. My promise to bring him with me closer to Christ remains the same. I might have to hide the children and work to send him to jail... because, how else am I going to bring him closer to Christ but to make sure he doesn't commit any more atrocities first? But, I will continue to love him and bring him to God even if the only thing I can do is tirelessly pray for his salvation. So, in your case, you've identified part of the problem - the suspected mental health problem. So... figure out how you can bring him closer to Christ knowing you have to deal with the mental health issue. That's what it means to fight for your covenant. It doesn't matter if he decides to divorce you - that's his free agency. The divorce is simply a government paper. It has nothing to do with your marital covenant you made at the Temple. Only you and God can break that... and I can assure you, God won't break it and turn back on his promise. You're the only one that can do that. So, even when you're divorced, you can still fight for your marital covenant by working to bring him with you closer to Christ in whatever capacity he allows you to in his exercise of his free agency. Good luck and hope this helps.

They have the Honors and/or AP and/or IB in some high schools here. My son is in Middle School. My other son who is in High School have classes in these flavors: Piano track, Guitar track, Visual Arts track, Drama track, Band track... you get the idea. The academics classes are one-size fits all but they can choose whether to skip freshman year academics - these are for students that were in the smart or genius classes in Middle School (not all middle schools have these tracks). Those that skip freshman year academics get college classes in senior year at the local college (choice between the state college or the community college) which would be 2 semesters worth since they get to go for the whole year. The arts classes are already in cooperation with the state college even in freshman year - the highly talented kids get to perform/exhibit their art at the college hall so the college professors come to the high school to work with the kids to prepare for these performances/exhibits. The regular high schools here are like your high schools - Crap Shoot, Useless Busy Work, and Pretend College. So, if you're wanting to take advantage of the tax-funded system you have to position your kid from elementary school so you can get accepted to the good magnet school that has excellent programs. My Middle Schooler did so well in Elementary School he has his choice of Middle Schools from all the magnet schools in the city. My High Schooler qualified for the top 2 academic magnets - including their IB programs. But he chose to go to the arts magnet instead. My neighborhood school is so bad, my kid's best friend - who is one smart cookie - came home with 2 F's last week.

Well... in my son's school, they have 3 tracks: Standard, Advanced, and Gifted This translates to: Standard Regular kids Advanced: Smart ones Gifted: Geniuses So, there's no such thing as hatred/envy/any-other-negativity to geniuses in that school. They're simply the kids who are learning algebra and geometry and statistics in one school year while the regular kids are mastering fractions, so they got more homework than the regular kids and may not have time to goof off with video games.

I have another question but it's not related to the above question. I'll ask it here, if that's ok. Aish, my understanding is that a Jewish man marrying a non-Jewish woman would have non-Jewish children. A Jewish woman marrying a non-Jewish man will have Jewish children. Is that right? Also, is it true that it is a contradiction for Christians to claim that Jesus is the son of God and then claim that Jesus is descended of David because Joseph is not Jesus father by blood?

On Conservatism: Okay, we all can agree that Cruz is the gold standard for conservatism, right? I posted the issues comparison between Trump and Cruz above. Here's Kasich and Cruz to measure Kasich's conservatism. It will show that Trump has more in common with Cruz than Kasich does. So, if you think Kasich is conservative enough to vote for, then Trump would even be more so: Issues Cruz and Kasich disagree on: Legally require hiring women and minorities: Cruz disagrees, Kasich agrees Same sex marriage is ok: Cruz disagrees, Kasich agrees Marijuana is a gateway drug: Cruz disagrees. Kasich agrees Progressive Income tax with higher taxes for the wealthy: Cruz Disagrees (Cruz is for flat tax), Kasich Agrees Beef up the military: Cruz agrees, Kasich disagrees Kasich is not quite clear on Syrian Refugees and the wall on the southern border. He was for accepting Syrian refugees but recently changed his position on this after Belgium. He believes the US has the right to build the southern border wall but thinks it's not feasible.