Carborendum

No, that was me. I needed it for my mission.

I agree, but... I'll let Trey Gowdy explain: Starts at around 1:25, and more fully at 3:25 and again at 4:20 to the end.

Yeah. I addressed this. Here are several problems with this statement. 1. If we take your position (and I don't) then our ability to support the poor completely needs ENOUGH people helping. Just because there are poor, doesn't mean no one is helping. That's just plain ignoring the facts. The "poor" are going to be around 10% of a thriving, free society (as Jesus said, "the poor ye shall always have among you"). To support them completely in a financial manner would require 90% of the people to give about 10% to support the poor. So, even if 60% of the people were giving 10% to help the poor, then there would still be some that are not taken care of. It's not that we DON'T. It's that the requirement to solve the problem using this mindset is virtually impossible. 2. Your underlying philosophy is that unless we give stuff to them, then we're not helping them. No. Jesus' method is not to take the man out of the slums. He takes the slums out of the man. Then the man takes himself out of the slums. In my work with the poor, I've seen this play out 1000 times. Give them money for emergency items only. Anything else is simply enabling them. And it is a careful balancing act. So, believe it or not, we often err on the side of compassion. 3. We don't want them to starve. So, regardless of your claim that we allow people to starve, we do give food and money and support to the poor who really have nothing. But that's just never enough for you to notice. Partially because we don't do it to be seen of men. And your condemnation of things you know little about is quite arrogant and judgmental. Yes, we do. I don't know who you're talking about or who you hang around with. But all of my extended family takes care of each other. And all the friends that I have also take care of their families. In fact, I know of only one person in all that network of individuals who is in a retirement home. And that woman decided to go there on her own even when she was invited to live with family. And even in that assisted living home, she still has family come over there every day to take care of things that the attendants don't take care of. And guess what? She's the most liberal person I've ever personally known. And she chose that path because she's also one of the richest people I've ever known. And she's never given a dime to the poor. Why? Because she figures that government will take care of it. It is when government "takes care of it" that we stop caring about each other. She's living proof of it. I'm going to ask you to clarify. Either they didn't do it, or they did it better. I'm going to take this in stride and interpret it to mean that there are always people who do something, but never enough to end poverty entirely. That's true ("the poor ye shall always have among you"). And, yes, they did it better in past generations. But the cause is where we disagree. Again, I wonder who you're hanging out with. Yes, I've heard of people doing this. But regardless of having an R or a D on their voter card, these are not conservatives. I've only known two examples personally. One was a very liberal home. The daughter was trying to find someone to live with as soon as she turned 17. Yeah, she ended up bedding down with a sugar daddy. Do you really believe this was a person raised with conservative values? The other did it after the man-child made it pretty clear that he had no intention of ever getting a job. This was after much forbearance, accommodation, and pleading from the parents. On the flip side, I've seen what happens when you enable adult children living with you. That, too, is a cause of poverty. I've seen it first hand with the people I work with quite often; and it ain't pretty. If those truly were the only options, I'd pick kicking them out. I agree. The liberals need to help out and get government out of it. Help us take the slum out of the man, so he can take himself out of the slum. We've had this discussion before. And you're using terminology that doesn't line up with today's vernacular. There is a HUGE difference between government MANDATED social programs vs. individuals coming together as a group to help on another. HUGE. There have been numerous statements by general authorities calling such government programs "Satan's substitutes" for divine principles. It was compared to "love" vs. "lust". If after all this time, you don't see the difference, then you seem to be oblivious to the principle of agency. Yes, I agree that the Democrats of the past weren't so bad. I even liked Kennedy for a number of reasons. He made some major mistakes like most presidents. But for the most part, I liked him. Today's Democrat platform doesn't have anything that I would vote for. They "claim" to do an awful lot that would seem to be appealing. But their actual practice is far from solving any purported problems that they seem to rail against. My impression on this is that 1. The Dems who are still supporting old fashioned moral values are being pushed out of the party. 2. Republicans who allow immoral behavior are not "supporting" it. They are supporting freedom of choice. While Dems require that you "celebrate" it and condemn Christian morality. 3. Corrupt politicians are on both sides of the isle and both sexes. And if you don't believe me, just google the word "throuple." You're conflating several things here. Separate them and you get a bit closer to truth. Can you be a "good latter-day saint" and not care much for the Constitution? Certainly. No one has argued otherwise. But you're saying we're wrong for thinking something we've never thought. I'll make the TRUE point a little further down the page. We believe the Constitution is divinely inspired. The D&C says so. It was never intended to be a basis for religious worship. It was God's ordained method of running earthly governments in the latter days. It was written in a manner that its principles would only work with a moral and religious people. It depended on churches to be free to do their jobs without government interference, so that the principles of the Constitution would be sufficient to run an earthly government. Most conservatives tend to believe similar things, although not because of direct scriptural guidance. However, they look to statements about the Bible dividing up three branches of government, etc. No. Christians in general tend to believe in the principle that God is the author of our freedom to choose. Christians tend to believe that the Constitution was written to help protect those freedoms. As we stray from the Constitution, we stray from those protections. And as we stray from those protections, religion in general will be threatened. I don't know of ANY conservatives who believe otherwise. I don't know of ANY politician in recent memory that has advocated for anything else. I don't know of ANY conservatives who believe otherwise. I don't know of ANY politician in recent memory that has advocated for anything else. I believe the problem we have is that when you say "not just the rich" that evokes again the idea that if government doesn't take care of it, then no one will. FALSE. It's virtually free to all right now. MANY simply don't avail themselves of all the aid that is out there. And when they do, they simply can't make the cut or they just don't have the drive to continue. Worse, is that they choose fields of study that don't improve the human being at all. Improving the human being is what education used to be about. But today's universities simply don't. You teach at a university or college, don't you? Think about 100 students being taught by one of those "liberal professors" that you mentioned in another thread. How many of them are becoming better human beings or coming closer to God because of that instruction? Unless you're at BYU or a similar themed Christian university, I think you'd have a hard time finding the majority of those 100 students turning to God. I've already gone into that in depth. Take the slum out of the man, he takes himself out of the slum. Take the man out of the slum, he'll just go right back to it. I don't know of ANY conservatives who believe otherwise. The thing you don't see is that bills that are titled with "feel good labels" that sound all 'green' aren't really doing anything to change the environment for the better. There are, however, ways that government can actually apply meaningful laws to help protect the environment. And we have many such things on the books. And every conservative I know of support them. If you want to go in depth on that, start a new thread and ask "How do conservatives help the environment." I'm glad we agree on at least one thing without reservation. Yes, I believe the majority of Republicans have abandoned the idea of being fiscally conservative. Only a few still do. On the other hand, NONE of the Democrats do so I'll defer to @Vort's statement on that. Diet Coke/Heroin.

Yes, I checked my spreadsheet. I had a decimal typo. I was in a hurry. I believe you may have had a typo in yours. Here are my complete (edited) calculations for all to see. 36 x 0.5 x 5280 / 27 = 3520 cy 3520 cy x 2 tons/cy = 7040 tons (of asphalt). <---- I noticed nobody showed the conversion from vol to weight. Here it is. 7040 tons x 0.05 = 352 tons (of bitumen). (Yes, I'm sure Colorado uses 6% more commonly. But 5% is a national average). For clarity, I'm calling the mixture of binder and aggregate "asphalt" and the binder itself "bitumen". But, yes, I'm aware that they are often used synonymously. 352 tons x $320 /ton (savings) = $112,640 savings for one mile of road. Nowhere near half price. Even using your estimate of $600k =/- that's a far cry from 50%. Closer to 15%. And I'd like to ask for a source for that estimate. I think it is low, even for an overlay. Large equipment + mob-demob costs would be about $300k or so. Then you've got labor costs. A LOT of people are making quite a penny when you include travel expenses for a rural road. Truckers would cost quite a bit depending on distance from plant. I get the impression that you're only talking about the material cost alone. Do you care to change your estimates? Or did I make a mistake in my calculations?

No, it is not. https://www.12news.com/article/news/local/arizona/bodycam-winslow-business-owner-cited/75-b82c8b47-a973-4e09-9f84-18be7bf3dcc2 What you are seeing are not actual gas pumps. It appears that the lot used to be owned by a gas station. It closed. And this souvenir shop opened up with a "shaded area" for customer parking. He thought that he was getting around the law by registering as a different type of store (which would be considered an essential business). The police were asking when that registration was changed -- ex post facto (on the business owner's part). Then they asked what he was selling at the time that qualified. He named them. But they looked around and didn't see anything that qualified. That said, I don't like the idea that we close "non-essential" businesses. Who decides what is "non-essential"? Yes, I know. From a short term perspective, only that which is essential to sustain life. But this has the potential to extend into a very long time. After a while, we must acknowledge that man does not live by bread alone.

I miss these very rare jokes from Traveler. Why don't you crack these jokes more often? I LOVE YOUR sense of humor. But you so rarely let it out.

Well, I'm not left or right. So, how am I supposed to answer the poll? I'm more libertarian. Some ways I'm liberal. Some ways I'm conservative. However, I'm DEFINITELY not a moderate in anything. But I'm ALWAYS a Latter-day Saint.

Hey, any real gamer will DEFINITELY tell you that Hobby Lobby is an essential business.

Abortion. Gay Marriage. Socialism. Government limitations on religious freedom. Adherence to the Constitution. Vandalizing businesses that don't agree with you. Are there any left-wing positions that any Christian Church would find in adherence to Christ's teachings? What? Giving to the poor, you say? We give to the poor. The left wants to take from you so that you cannot give to the poor. They will do it and try to take all the credit for it so that government can be bigger to take away all our rights as well as our money. Anything else? Politicians, you say? True there are many bad politicians everywhere. They tend to lie all over the place. What do you want? For us to sit back and not vote and let leftists vote the OTHER liar into office? Yeah, that would be better, huh?

It looks like you haven't actually done the math on it yet. As usual. Just do this: How much is the price of bitumen (even at 6% instead of 5%) for a mile of roadway 6" thick pavement for a 36' wide (2x12' lanes + 2x6' shoulders) roadway? You'll find the savings to be less than $2000. And what is the typical price of such a roadway for a mile? You'll find that it is nearly $200,000. So, about 1% of it is bitumen cost.

Good idea. But it completely ignores the details that make this idea useless. Remember that the actual bitumen content of asphalt mix designs amount to about 5% by weight or about 10% to 15% by volume. Then you've got the base, subbase, subgrade prep and stabilization... So, you're really only saving less than 1% of the overall construction cost because of bitumen prices. There's labor, financing, equipment rentals, traffic controls... That said, roadway construction has always been a method that government entities have used to stimulate the economy -- usually with good results. But the amount being saved by oil prices generally is not the reason why it makes financial sense to do so.

No one records your attendance on a permanent list. Even when you sign the Sunday School roster as they pass it around, your name isn't recorded on a permanent basis. It is mostly counting heads. But I believe NT's question is a profound one. In case you didn't catch it... No human would tell you that you "MUST" or else... But the Lord may guide you to the practical reality that you can't actually SERVE anyone in a Christlike way without spending significant time with them. Christianity is about service. And if you're spending most of your life basically on a permanent vacation, then I would ask whom do you serve? One of the questions of the temple recommend is about attending your regular church meetings. As a an example of practical reality, I spent much of my life working away from homebase. I was often on assignment to over 40 states (I haven't taken the time for an exact count) and to 7 foreign countries. I've been gone days, weeks, and months away from my family. This was very similar to a military family where the family doesn't go with the soldier. And while I kept my temple recommend through all of that time, it really was impractical for me to hold a calling or do anything useful to building up the Kingdom of God. During all that time, I was considered active. And my family was being raised in the Church. I tried to call (before the internet was ubiquitous) whenever I could. By the time Skype came around, I used that quite often. But how can you really do home teaching (before ministering)? How can you be a teacher or any type of leader? You can't. Virtually all callings require personal contact with other members of the ward. A few years ago, I settled down. I was able to see my family every night. And I was called to do many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God. The time of city hopping was a time of gray miasma. The time of serving my fellow men is a time of clear daylight -- sunshine in my soul.

Yes. Hi Pete. But this is @Allison, a girl's name. Shouldn't we be calling her @GaleG? You see, Gale, again, you've made the same mistakes as always. A statement of confusion where there was none before. Ignoring context to intentionally put a meaning into the words that was never intended. e.g. I don't see you saying the same thing about Christ's injunction to "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in Heaven is perfect." Pointing out a flaw in scriptures that isn't a flaw. Never pointing out anything inspirational, but only what you found confusing. Have you ever considered that maybe a book that millions of people read on a regular basis and find inspirational and helpful to leading a better life might actually have some good things to say? Why haven't you found them? I don't believe in the stories of ancient mythology. But I can find so many truths of life in those stories. And I don't condemn them as "false." I just find them as really cool stories with very important messages. I say the same with the works of Shakespeare. So, even if you don't believe the Book of Mormon is Godly, then at least find some very real truths of life as if you found it in any literature. Now, I expect you to find "false truths" and show "false excitement" over them just to point out how false the BoM is. Thanks for playing anyway.

🤣 I fixed it. But the funny thing is that after Conference ended, I remembered only three. Thus three was the number of my counting. And the number of my counting was three. But when I went to get the exact quotes, there were four of them -- like four white horses. Anyway, I just never corrected it in my head... until now.

I have put some thought together on this that I'd like to share. When President Nelson proposed this fast he gave four stated goals: The Present Pandemic May Be Controlled Caregivers Protected The Economy Strengthened Life Normalized. Now, I know that the temporal and Spiritual are always linked. But these all seem too temporal to be the end goal. So, what is the spiritual side? At the end of Conference, Pres. Nelson repeated the call to fast and these four goals of the fast. Then something interesting happened. After about a minute or two summary of all that had been covered during Conference, he spent about 6-1/2 minutes out of a 9-1/2 minute address talking about temples. He also gave the following quote. Yes, this outlines the fact that if we look to the temple for relief from our troubles, we will receive deliverance. But what it also says to me is that the spiritual side that we're missing from the quarantine is that we can no longer go to the temple. Yes, we fasted for those four things. But unless we use that rediscovered freedom and utility to actually attend the temple regularly, then what was the point? So, we could go back to hour normal lives not improving, not doing the Lord's will? We are not going to lose our freedom -- particularly our freedom to worship Him unless we have not been faithful to Him. So, I don't believe we will gain a reprieve until a sufficient number of The Saints will gain a renewed will to be more faithful in going to the temple.

It's too short when YOU look at it and say "Oh my heck! That's sooo short!" If someone else looks at it and says "Oh my *&^#%? That's &^%$ short!" MAYDAYYYY!!

Knowing what I do of you, I can take a guess at what you're talking about. So, I'll address it this way. When my wife was a small child, her father was a very giving man. She was fairly happy without even asking for much at all. But she did ask. And she did receive. At some point, he lost his job. In fact, he lost if for years. She was well aware of the situation after she heard "no" a few too many times. So, she stopped asking. Her father still tried to be the kind man he always was. But he simply couldn't do what he used to do at the level that he used to do it. Ever since then, she has the same tendency as you do. She doesn't ask for anything for herself. I practically have to drag out of her any desires of her heart. I really want to give to her. But she just doesn't ask. It's quite frustrating when I really want to give to her. In ages past, I believe that miracles were much more common than today. The Lord was also willing to prosper the societies that were righteous, and punish those who were wicked (pride-prosperity cycle). Miracles ceased among the children of men because of the wickedness of men. We can see this wickedness as having a similar effect as poverty. God is still a giving god. But if we as a society are not righteous enough, then miracles are often withheld even from the righteous. Even so, the Lord does bless the righteous -- ALWAYS. But it just can't be at the level that was given in a world where even the wicked believed in miracles. In this world where even the righteous believers think that miracles have stopped or at least been diminished, the Lord has no choice but to diminish the spigot. What does pour out does pour out. And he tends to give that little bit to the faithful. While the world's faith reduces the spigot. The Lord can still direct that flow to the faithful. We are given the knowledge of God. We can have access to miracles that the world is ready to receive.

@Anddenex, @maklelan, I believe that the "give it your all" in the gospel sense is going to be like an athlete in the following way. Sprinters can reach tremendous speeds -- for the short term. But if an Olympic class marathon runner were to keep up the pace of an Olympic class sprinter for the duration of a marathon, they'd most likely die. Then they cannot do any more marathons. It is not meet that a man can run faster than he has strength. But what happens if the marathon is cut short? Example: we pace ourselves for a marathon. But then find out it is only a mile run. We certainly could have done better. But we didn't know that. If I knew I were dying then I could be almost reckless in my zeal for preaching the gospel, administering to the sick, feeding and clothing the poor. But if it turns out I'm not dying, then I just wasted an opportunity to do much more along a longer timeframe. Only the Savior knew exactly what needed to be done at exactly the right time. And that included having his feet washed and his head anointed -- and throwing moneychangers out of the temple and upturning tables. We're not so all-knowing. So, we simply can't give EVERYTHING, because we don't know what the appropriate level is at what time. I think it can be safely said that people tend to do the best they believe, the best the understand, with what they know at the time.

Apparently, the woman in the video has apologized to the police. https://www.foxnews.com/health/idaho-activist-apologizes-refusing-leave-playground-amid-coronavirus-pandemic With all this sympathy for the police officer expressed on this thread (which I agree was appropriate) I believe the woman was not given enough sympathy. All's as it should be. Move along show's over.

I caught this in the comments: I can't remember where I read this (it was a while ago). But this gal was suicidal. That's why she ate it. And it appears (preliminary report only) that the woman who drank the HCQ was trying to poison her husband, and took a smaller dose herself to make it appear as if she was just "following President's Orders."

We're all sick of it, and we're a stay at home family. We homeschool. We shop on Amazon. I have a home based business. We usually don't go anywhere. And we're getting jumpy. If our family feels like we're in a prison, then, yeah, a lot of people are messed up right now.

Yes, they look pretty random to me. What this means is that no matter what the numbers were you'd still find that there was something "special" about them. SMH. You know what? Have a field day. I'm done.

The problem here is that this is an all or nothing argument (false dichotomy). And it appears that many on this thread have fallen for it. God has given the Light of Christ to all men regardless of religious instruction to have some innate sense of right and wrong. Further Light and Knowledge can be found through right and true religion. Just because we know some things as a child doesn't mean we don't learn more as we grow and mature.

No, there wasn't. It was something like 20 this year vs 13 last year around the same time. With numbers that low, it is hard to analyze from a statistical probability standpoint. The call center stated people had "feared" they had swallowed these substances. This doesn't sound like intentionally drinking it. The fact that people are simply trying to disinfect things a WHOLE LOT more than normal, means that people will be using these substances more often than last year. And when people use a product more often, the number of cases of accidental misuse will also go up. Nothing here indicates that any of this activity was due to the President's comments. That said, I, too was shocked at hearing him say that. It showed a remarkable lack of understanding of chemistry and biology. He sounded like a puppy trying to get his share of the spotlight. I come to like Trump this past couple of years. But this was just plain ignorant. It's one thing to say he hopes a product is promising and he really thinks it might be. It is quite another to announce trying something that basic chemistry tells you is just plain wrong. But no, I don't think ANYONE would have taken that as a call to start drinking bleach. And I believe that Trump realized that shortly after the press briefing. That is why he's ceasing or reducing any further briefings. He knows he stepped in it this time. And he's trying to do damage control.

Yes, that would be correct. But have you looked at the other side? What we have here is a bell curve. But it is a very FLAT bell curve. Even the high point in the center of the bell curve is very small. It just happens to be larger than the rest of the curve. For instance, if you wanted to find ONLY those combinations which used ALL 10 numbers, then it is NOT 10^27. It is MUCH smaller. 1/134,217,72 is actually ~7.45x10^18 / 10^27. (Just take a moment to consider how large that numerator is before you go looking at the denominator). vs. But the probabilities of using each digit at least once among 30 (You switched on me, my calculations were based on 30 numbers) is about 10^9 (or 10^10) / 10^30. That is an even MORE infinitesimal than only using 5 numbers. You're not really addressing my other points regarding you're whole numerology thing with the 5x7 is completely bunk. I disproved it. And you didn't address it.