Carborendum

That just as easily applies to you. My problem was your use of the word "translation." But I may have been hasty in my reaction. So, I apologize. I'm not saying that the meaning you provided (authorized) is completely absent in the statement. I'm saying that "authorized" is a corollary, not the primary meaning. If I never knew you, how could I have authorized you? Likewise, if you never really knew me, how could you say you were truly serving my interests?

I believe you ended up rebutting yourself. I realize that the point Ironhold is making is different from the one I'm making. But they seem to overlap. Here's my point: We hear that there is a concern. Many jumped on the bandwagon of "Whoa! That's horrible. Everyone is going to die!!!" My first reaction was, "Ok, that's concerning. What's the data?" It's usually wise to hear an accusation and begin to ask for evidence to determine if it is true or not. Faucci and others were lying so blatantly (the lab leak theory is a hoax!!!) created an environment of distrust that simply saying "Trust us. It's safe." was not very reassuring. So, I'm just sitting here asking for more data. And the party that we KNOW are documented liars are saying, "Hey, don't worry." Is that very reassuring for you? Now we have clearer data that showed there was some truth to the fears. But when looking at the bigger picture, it probably was not worth all the hype. Was it too much to ask that they at least show the data and tell people, "Yes, with any medical procedure, there are always some minor risks. But in this case, the benefits outweigh the risks." I realize some of this was all emotional. But I was simply asking for data. And when I look at data, I can weigh "how" true a statement is. Apparently the fears were only about 0.1% true. While not a lie, it isn't anything to worry about. And that would be what I based my decisions on.

You seem to have missed the very next sentence and how that further shaped my position/reaction. My complaint was not that it was a conspiracy. It was that no one was even looking at the time. No one in power even cared what the "facts" were. It turned out that the numbers were indeed very large. But the percentage of people was very low. That would have been (or at least should have been) a satisfactory answer. But the fact that they simply blew off the question without really looking was objectionable.

In a softer time, in an age when a President and the opposing Speaker could regularly sit down together for lunch together (Reagan & Kissenger) that would certainly be ideal. But we both know that we no longer live in such times. Trump actually asked Pelosi and Schumer to sit down in such meetings to hopefully become friends. They did meet. But the Speaker and Dem Leader simply couldn't get the picture of Hitler off of their minds during the entire meeting. They also couldn't get their minds off of all their kick-backs that they were getting from the many government programs that DOGE is shutting down. We live in a time when political rhetoric rules. And quite frankly, it is not just the politicians. The people are divided into only listening to partisan hackery...Like calling their political opponents "Hitler" and decrying every action as "unconstitutional". I've heard it said (and I'm inclined to lean to this belief) that we're in a "soft civil war." Do I want it this way? NO!!! Would I end these patterns? I certainly wish there were a way. Forgive me, but this reeks of straining at the gnat and swallowing the camel. We have district judges claiming equal authority to the President Yes, Boasberg actually said that. We have judges who violate the law (harboring fugitives who smuggle fentanyl and other drugs across the border) while supporters are cheering them on? There are times that political theater is all that gets through to people. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't. Maybe it goes over the line. Maybe it doesn't. I'm confident that he has no plans to run again. And it seems that you agree. Today the political world includes people who prefer an illigal alien who beats his wife, participates in human trafficking, and rapes/murders litle girls to be returned to the US as a free man. I'd prefer the jokes and theater rather than the actual constitutional violations of prioritizing of such illegal monsters over everyday US citizens.

That's pretty messed up. I just figured that the advice was a mortal advice from a mortal doctor. And I treated it as such. Sometimes they're right. Sometimes they're wrong. Most of the time their advice is more educated than a layperson. But it doesn't make it gospel. I believed that Pres Nelson made the announcement because (as far as I heard) there were far too many Saints who were claiming a religious exemption, when it had nothing to do with our religion. The big concern I had was about the myocarditis and pericarditis. People raised the question, and no one seemed to be answering. They just blew it off without explanation. Just denial, denial, denial. That's what got me worried. I never claimed that I was sure the jab was causing it. But I was concerned that no one was addressing it. Now, after all the panic and hoopla is over... after Pfizer made their billions already and don't push it anymore... we find two interesting pieces of information. Normally, we see incidence of myocarditis in about 10 per 100,000. And it normally affects young men (regardless of health). But during the height of the jab, we saw this jump to 20 per 100,000. And it still predominantly affected young men. So, what are we to determine from this? The rate jumped by about 100%. But it is still an extremely small percentage of the population. Based on that data, I don't really know either way. Since a standard (that I've seen, anyway) is that if a drug/medication/etc. causes a mortality rate of 1/1,000 it is of concern. Sometimes 1/10,000 is enough to actually investigate further. If it is at a rate of 1/100, then they don't recommend the medication. And over 2% is automatically pulled off the market. Well, by that standard, it looks like the jab was on the borderline of being safe or not. And it is largely a matter of opinion. AFAIK, this information was available during the pandemic. Why didn't they just share this with us? I'd bet it would shut up a lot of conspiracy theorists. I just wanted to know the facts. But All I heard was that "you're too ignorant to understand that we're doing what is good for you." Yeah, that bugged me.

There are a couple of things I'm aware of that cause people to ignore the concept of "savings." 1. I think that this behavior comes from overemphasis on "living in the now." The young lady we're helping out does that to the detriment of planning for the future. We learn from the past. We hope and plan for the future. We live in the now. I'm afraid that people see point #3 and forget #1 & #2. 2. Often times, poor people normally don't have money left over at the end of the paycheck. So, they get stuck in this mentality of "I must spend every dollar I have." So, even if they do have $10 at the end of the month. They spend it by habit, rather than trying to save. 3. Some people have simply lost hope. Without hope, there is no reason to save for the future. Today is all they have and can't even imagine a future.

I don't believe any aspect of Backroads is curmudgeonly. That's for old men like me. It seems you've taken sincere measures to help someone who is operating at below optimal conditions. And she is swatting away your hand of charity.

I was introduced to ADHD in 6th grade. Here's the story... When I was a child I had a problem reading. As young as I was, I was unable to verbalize the nature of my problem. And the only advice I was given was "keep reading more and it will become easier for you." That didn't work. It only made things worse. And again, I couldn't describe why. By 6th grade my teacher called for a parent-teacher meeting about me. I got high marks on everything else. I could read any sentence. I could write well. I got highest marks on spelling. But I simply couldn't read through a book. And all I knew was that it took too long. In that same class, a new student moved into the district. He and I had the same first name which caught my attention. But for the purposes of this post, I'll call him "Joe". Because of him, I was first introduced to the term "ADHD". And apparently, it was bad enough that he required medication. For Joe, I'd absolutely agree. Even with medication, he was a wild child who sometimes got words mixed up in common sentences because his brain was so chaotic that it was difficult for him to not jumble words. My first question was "why does ADD have to include hyperactivity?" No one had an answer that satisfied me other than "they are usually related." I really didn't understand that. Later, I realized it was because my ADD was not a clinical condition. It was just the way my brain worked. As I got more acquainted with Joe, I realized that I had ADD, but I was not hyperactive. So, apparently, I had something else going on. I played a lot during recess and lunch hour. And my body got a workout. My brain worked a lot faster than my body. This led to insomnia. My brain was going long after my body was tired. So, it was difficult for me to fall asleep. Looking back, I now understand what was really happening. I've spoken of the cross-referencing brain I have. That was my greatest strength and weakness. Any time I read a word, my brain would immediately connect that same word with many other instances where I'd either read or heard that same word. This made reading an entire paragraph a spider web of cogitation. Scriptures were actually easier to read because the verses forced a break in my thought processes to interrupt the connections in my brain. That's why my parents never knew I had a reading problem. I was perfectly capable of reading scriptures. And that was what we read together. So, for them to hear from my teacher that I was failing in my reading was a surprise. If medication were as common as it is today, I would have had a very different brain development. And I would have had a very different life. I'd probably be on welfare.

I hear you. Is this because of lack of knowledge/understanding? Or is it because she is intellectually challenged? If she simply doesn't know how, you go one route. If she's intellectually challenged, take another route. To clarify: When I say "intellectually challenged" she may not fit the clinical definition of "retarded" (IQ below 75). But if she's on the lower end of normal (80-85) she simply may not have learned a lot of what you and I take for granted. So, the first thing is to try to educate her (with a lot of patience). But if she's always been this way, then one problem you'll have is that she's told herself "I just can't..." Whether you think you can or you think you can't, you're right. So, you'll have that to work through. And it will not be easy. A lifetime of programming has told her "I can't." You're not going to deprogram that overnight. Something similar to this has happened to the young lady that my wife and I have been helping. She basically needs to be walked through the process. We think it's easy to just print out a form. But she doesn't have a printer. We think it is easy to just look up a govt. bldg. on Google. But she can't spell. Sometimes she can't remember words like "vital records." And she may not quite understand the directions that Google gives from her GPS. We take all these things for granted. But if she's never been taught... Every person needs to make a judgment call about how much we can help, and when we have reached the limit. At some point, when we've really done what we can to help out, we need to make a call. And each call is situation specific. There is no rule. It's just judgment. And the limit for you will be different than it is for other. Put your own mask on first, then help the next person. Ponder and pray for guidance. Then understand your proper priorities. ALSO: If you think that all social links have been exhausted, it may be time to bring government into it as @Phoenix_person said. While I'd always encourage that as a last resort only, it may be that this situation is appropriate for government safety nets. But beware of one thing, the number of people who are able to ween themselves off of it, while a significant number, is still pretty low. The fact that she may never get off of it is a reason to try to avoid it. But if it is the last resort...

This article can be summarized into the following categories: 1. Baseless accusations. 2. Conspiracy theories. 3. Misattributed motives to perfectly common and/or legal and appropriate actions. Try comparing that list of supposed "retaliatory acts" to what has happened in the past for former administration personnel. You'll find very little variation from precedent. It just isn't discussed much. But in the hands of the liberal media, any common thing that Trump does is immediately conjoined with ulterior motives. Who said anything about "broken"? It's just a reality. When the majority of the Democratic party believes it is acceptable to use violence to achieve political ends, why wouldn't he believe it? When Pritzker gives an address calling for mass protests and mass disruption, what do you think that 55% of Democrats are going to do with that? Sure, it will be "mostly peaceful" like all the BLM protests have been in the past. And, of course, no one will damage property like Tesla has been seeing for the past several months. And, obviously, no one will perform violence, like Luigi Mangione while being cheered on by his adoring fans. Given the very public track record of just how "peaceful" Democrats have been for the past 15 years, forgive me if I'm not as nonchalant about how these protests are going to turn out. No, Trump is at the stage that he is old enough to have lived a full life mostly in the spot light. Sure, he's hopeful that he will survive, to die peacefully in his sleep. But he knows how many want him dead. And he wants to give a gift to humanity before he bows out at his final curtain call. *********** EDIT: About the 2028 Merch. That's just political theater. And you're falling right into his trap. His goal is to get his opponents so worked up that they can't think straight. They get angry enough that they trip over themselves clinging to any conspiracy theory and running it through the news until it is debunked the next day. Thus pretty much anything the left says is immediately disregarded as the fake news that it is. If they would just stop for a moment and consider that he is not in fact Hitler, they would realize how much of it is just wishful thinking. Then you might actually focus on Trump's REAL weaknesses. You might actually win.

Close. A little more than that: 17.4% https://www.visualcapitalist.com/visualizing-chinas-dependence-on-u-s-trade/ Let's give credit where it's due. And how much do they buy from us? $36.4B vs $501B Who will lose more if we completely shut down trade between us? I think you overestimate the ability and willingness of the rest of the world to go along with that. Time will tell. I agree. 4 years is unrealistic to re-adjust to everything. But the overall plan is a multi-variate equation. And there is a lot more going on than a simple look at trade relations with a single nation alone. Where did you get that from? Admittedly, for a well-oiled machine to work properly, all the pieces of the machine need to work toward a common goal. That's true for any leader. But if you're making this into some mob-boss edict or dictatorial paranoia, you'll have to show some evidence of that. I'll offer a different perspective. He fully expects to be assassinated in this term in office. That's why he's getting as much done as possible before he dies. He doesn't want it all to be for nothing. That chart is about as exaggerated as the increase in left-handedness was used to compare the rise in trans. Take a hard look at the numbers and what the percentages and scales are. That's nothing.

A Rabbi gave an interpretation of a New Testament scripture? Well, then... obviously.

I'd appreciate a source for that. I've looked at the Greek. I've looked at over 40 translations of that verse. None of them say anything about "authorize" in place of "knew." But the JST renders it as: "Ye never knew me."

Do the scriptures make no sense to you? Perhaps a mortal example might be appropriate: If you were sent to the hospital for several months of very expensive procedures, there would be no way for you to pay for all the bills. You'd forever be in debt to the hospital. If you had to pay for it yourself, it would take hundreds of years for you to pay back. That would be impossible. You simply couldn't do it. But because you have insurance, the insurance company pays for your bills. You are only responsible for the deductibles as much as you can pay, once you are out of the hospital. I am struggling to figure out how you interpreted that from what I wrote. Jesus had a mortal body. The Father did not. Christ's death was also required as payment. Jesus suffered both body and spirit. The Father could not suffer because He had an Exalted body. The Father cannot feel pain except for sorrow for the sins of man. No other being with a mortal body could have done so. Only Jesus. I believe you're invoking the principle of restitution. I don't see how that is different than a form of payment. And we are affected -- in the form of repentance, which includes things like remorse, accepting responsibility for sin, restitution as far as we are capable, etc. That's why repentance is required -- showing that they do understand the sin and the consequences. I have no idea what this sentence means. Are you arguing that God causes all sin? It could easily be argued that this is exactly what He does. According to Calvinist theology, there really is no way to refute it. I don't subscribe to that philosophy. You're forgetting that part of the Atonement bringing justice with His mercy includes the fact that He heals us. He heals the sinner. He heals the victim. Perhaps, you're looking at it as if it were a linear equation. But consider it a multivariate equation. You need to include the following: Law Crime Justice Restitution Mercy Repentance The requirement for us to be tried and tested. Pushed beyond our limits -- both on the receiving end of someone else's sin as well as being tempted so that we can sin. All these variables work in ways that need to balance out. Otherwise, all of us would be consigned to an endless state of misery, and God would cease to be God. We have been placed in a world where injustice exists so that we can understand what justice truly is. There must needs be an opposition in all things. And we understand that balance most completely under the principle of justice as outlined by the word of God, and the principle of mercy which is available through the Atonement of Christ.

Yeah, I wondered how that sentence would go over. I used some literary license. It was more succinct than the literal, technical description of what I was trying to convey.