Carborendum

What am I missing here? https://apnews.com/article/abortion-us-supreme-court-politics-health-new-jersey-bcecfda68434ebd9094ff489459f1183 According to the AP, abortion clinics are somehow "afraid" that they will be targets of terror attacks once the SCOTUS opinion is released. What kind of twisted logic gets them to the conclusion that they will be targets AFTER the decision is handed down? They even state that the leak has provoked increased violence from the pro-abortion people. Where have we seen an increase from pro-choice people? I haven't heard of ANY, much less an increase motivated by the leaked opinion. Why should abortion clinics "brace" for the decision?

A couple months ago I posted that I had decided to donate to Ammo Inc to supply ammunition to the Ukrainian army. They responded saying that they want to handle that by having donations go to the charity: CARE. I donated to them. I received a thank you note in the mail saying that they were grateful that I had donated to fight climate change. ??? I was very upset. Needless to say I stopped all communications. Today I just got a mailing from the March of Dimes asking for donations. I thought, "How about that! There's a charity I can get behind." Then I read what they were asking money for. They are chartered to support women and babies in need of medical care. That sure sounded ok. But there was something very odd about the wording and how they were saying some things and not saying others. They especially talked about how many women die in child birth in the US. When they say that they were able to reduce the number of babies born with birth defects. My alarm bells went off. I looked them up. Apparently, they are another charity that funds and encourages abortions. Is this old news? Do most people know that already? Dang! I've got to look into every donation I've made and see what they're really like underneath. I may just stop donating to any cause because everyone hides their real activities under the veneer of helping children. At least I'll be ok with tithing and fast offerings. Sheesh! Can I not donate to any other cause and feel like I'm helping some cause I actually support?

So, it looks like the forecast for Q2 of 2022 hasn't changed in about 60 days. The first quarter had a -1.5% GDP* growth rate. Second quarter is still forecast as +1.9% So, unless something big changes in the next couple of weeks, it looks like I will be wrong. No recession. But that sure isn't a growth rate that is making anyone happy. By the end of the year, they expect a year-over-year rate of 0.2% growth. (cue Ben Stein) Wow... I'm so happy we're not in an actual recession.** * The numbers shown are "Real" GDP (i.e. they include the effects of inflation). ** My theory is that we really are in a recession. But TPTB are fudging the numbers *just a tictch" so we can be so happy to not be in a recession.

Just recently, the Texas GOP Convention resulted in the demand to put a referendum up for a vote in the state for Texas Secession. No, this was not the first time. No, it never gained much steam in the past. No, it isn't really a gung-ho wide-spread Texan demand. I'd dare say that for the most part Texans don't care one way or the other. It's fun to talk about at parties. I'll make some more comments below about the law, the history, etc. But for now, I'd like to explore a more impactful question: If secession were possible, what then? What would the post secession (parts of) America look like? How would the monetary system work? Is there any state that could very quickly begin its own monetary system? North Dakota has its own state bank. It is essentially a baby version of the Federal Reserve. Crypto will be available through a state sanctioned financial system without the 17% transaction fee. Yeah, 17% SHEESH! What about the military? The military personnel by state of enlistment is about even. A slight slant towards the red states. But overall, about even. Equipment? Whoever maintains control of the actual equipment (including launch codes) will have the upper hand. But forgetting about the actual war for power, what would happen afterwards? Red states would be able to defend themselves. More guns. Blue States? Yeah, still a lot of people, but would they move out? Economy? Right now all the blue states are dying and sucking the federal government dry. The Red states are mostly faring well. Industry? Teh-heh. Red states doing much better. But that's not the only question. Energy would be a huge deal. But we need resources that are currently spread out between red and blue states. Actual petroleum to work with. Steel & concrete Copper Aluminum Plastics Electronics Major equipment manufacturers ... The list goes on It looks like custody over the kids might be the main reason to avoid a divorce. It would not look all that pleasant. Given that, I'd say that the only way we could reasonably desire separation is if things get so bad that a very nasty custody battle is more desirable than the state of things as they are. Now the how... I have done a lot of reading on the topic since so many media outlets are simply making fun of the idea as some outlandish wish of the ignorant far right kooks who have nothing better to do with their time. And to their point, the supposed legal basis for secession is weak at best. But the one sticking point is the one strongest argument that it is still up in the air. The one and only argument that really matters is that "The Civil War settled the issue once and for all." Doesn't that mean that another civil war can "settle the issue again... in the other direction?" I would think so. But is that likely? And could Texas (and some other states actually win such a war? Likely not. But I do see a possible future where secession is likely. That is -- how much political impetus is going to survive enough to keep the nation together? Neither side will really want to keep the other party around anymore. Democrats may talk the talk about the Constitution when it serves their ends. But don't hesitate to bow to the woke mob who believes the entire system is broken and was based on desires of slave owners to keep their own power. They'd have no problem getting rid of the Constitution. Republicans say they care about the Constitution. But the very existence of the secession movement (mostly by Republicans in various states) indicates they realize it may not be worth it anymore. If neither of the major parties really wants to be married anymore, wouldn't a divorce seem inevitable? During the actual Civil War, many Northerners were wondering why Lincoln even cared about keeping the South in the Union. "Let them go!" many activists cried out, "We don't need them!" Well, that didn't happen. But the sentiment was there. Is it stronger today? Lincoln felt the need to keep the nation together because he felt that to let the South go would mean that the great American Experiment was a failure. We know that it was not a failure. That fact is firmly established. So, I'd ask: What is the purpose of keeping the nation together today? If a civil war were to break out today we KNOW that many media outlets on both sides of the aisle would be saying "Let them go! We don't need them!" And at this point, is anyone in leadership practical enough to realized that, yes, we DO need them? Or are they even going to be megalomaniacal enough to want to keep them "just because I said so"?

Yes, the pride-prosperity cycle will be seen one more time. But it will be relatively short lived. We'll have one more chance to raise a righteous generation. Then we will fall.

9 years ago - Oregon: A man brings a bat and knife to rob a gunstore. https://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/26/us/gun-robber-armed-with-bat/index.html Today - Houston: A man brings a knife to a gun fight. Someone tried to rob a gunstore with a knife.

There's another part of the puzzle. While everyone has their biases, there is always the understanding that all sides need to be able to provide their side of the story, present their own evidence, call witnesses on their behalf... Those rotting away in solitary confinement are being denied all these things. And for some reason the Dems believe they have the moral high ground. If they do have it, why are they not allowing for opposing views, evidence, witnesses, and the presumption of innocence?

What I mean is that the old page format had the "edit" button around the bottom of the post. Now, it is hidden in that dot menu. So, by habit, a lot of people seem to be going to the quote button when they want to edit. So, it will eventually work out as people get used to the format. But in the meantime, we can expect a lot of mostly deleted posts.

Here is the proof that this was not an insurrection. The government suspended habeas corpus AGAINST ITS OWN CITIZENS and no one is able to stop it. They are imprisoned in solitary confinement without a chance for bail or counsel. When the government resorts to injustice to make their point, they've already proven that their point is not worthy of the justice system. When there is a conflict between parties who both cry out that the other side is the offender, one need only ask: "Who is using injustice as a weapon?"

When raised outside of religious conviction, there is nothing outside of oneself. Self is the ultimate source of reason and truth. Listening to this outer voice becomes a childish fantasy. And, yes, they will unconsciously reject it. Being raised with religious conviction, one is given the notion that they are not the center of the universe. By that one trait, one has a greater propensity towards humility. And humility is the beginning of learning truth. Which is better? To believe that one can come to the truth by one's own observations alone? Or by trusting in a higher power to open up the mysteries of the universe to you as you open up your heart to infinite possibilities?

The teacher or SS presidency or the bishopric reading the material doesn't change the fact that no one in the class has read the material. (Usu. the bishopric and SS presidencey don't attend the class.) "Encourage discussion"??? Discussion from whom? If the teacher is the only one who's read it, then how does he get the class to discuss something they haven't read? This ends up being the default. And that is unfortunate.

How does one encourage discussion about the scriptures when no one reads the material?

It may be a question of semantics. But I don't believe it is because we tell ourselves lies. I think it is that often times we don't know the difference between truth and lies.

Civically speaking, I believe we have the proper guidance on the matter: when a long train of abuses... Still, the principles will determine the results. If we truly are justified, then the Lord will be behind us. And the reverse would be the obvious corellary. So, if we really are willing to pledge our lives, our fortunes, and out sacred honor on the outcome, then rebellion/insurrection is on the table But that has to be backed up by the judgement of God to determine if it really is "OK when WE do it." And that is the real trick, isn't it?

This is a true statement. But look a little deeper. Why is this true?

.

We seem to now have a society in pretty much the entire developed world where we choose to believe falsehoods and stick with it no matter what. The fact that they're sticking to their guns is actually an admirable quality. People have the second half of that equation down pat. The problem is that too often, they don't abide by the first half of the equation. Why is that? Human beings have a natural desire for truth. Truth brings us peace. The Light of Christ tells us all that this is true. And truth provides a sense of security. Virtually any continually surviving religion today will provide a moral framework for people to determine what is truth. Religious conviction should also be slow in forming. We are raised through years of teaching. One may call it indoctrination if one disagrees with what is taught. But it doesn't matter. The child growing up in it is always curious. Some ask more questions than others. But they still take years and years to form their convictions about that religion -- even if they were indoctrinated since childhood. Whether right or wrong, they have learned There is such a thing as "truth". To reason out (whether false foundation or not) how truths fit together. They have learned how one truth will lead to another truth. To understand that knowing the truth will help guide their lives. They have put that system through their own natural curiosity of "how & why". That much at least provides a foundation for "proving all things." The problem we see today about the rising generation leaving religion in droves is not because they realize what they were taught was wrong. The problem is that they were never taught "truth" in the first place. Parents falsely believe that they shouldn't "force" their religion on their children. And there is a genuine wisdom in not "forcing" it upon them. But that often translates into "shield them from any religion at all." If you're never taught what is true (or worse, that there actually isn't a "truth" at all) how can one recognize it when they hear it? When people start off being told that there is no truth, then by default, they will believe what is false. As children of God, our spirits are fed by light and truth. We NEED truth. And if we can't find truth from our early surroundings, we desperately grab onto some falsehood as truth. "Hold fast to that which is false" becomes teh default. No such thing as "slowly forming convictions". No such thing as "proving all things". A starving person doesn't care if food is poisoned. They will ravenously eat it anyway. I would rather have a child brought up in a false religion than to have them raised with no religion at all. The false religion has a foundation of the idea of truth that we can work with. But to be raised thinking there is no truth? Exits from such a deep pit are few and far between.

Well, of course. People always believe what they want to believe. There's never any such thing as "proof". People only accept things that already fit into their narrative. The ironic thing is that we're essentially supposed to think that way. I'm going to start a new thread about that.

They actually form a little closer to Cuba than that. https://scijinks.gov/hurricane/

So, we're apparently up to 28 attacks https://catholicvote.org/pregnancy-center-attack-tracker/ Oh, but don't worry, these are only isolated incidents. It's not like it is encouraged by political rhetoric. Nothing to see here. I wonder... 28 across a country as big as ours may not be the panic moment some take it to be. What number will it take before it is a trend? When does it become terrorism? How many before it isn't just "isolated"?

This was, as you say, perfectly logical and reasonable given the circumstances -- according to the customs of men. And that is exactly why it was wrong. What happens when God says one thing and the customs of men say another? Saul (and the more part of the Israelites at the time) kept choosing the customs of men instead of the ways of God. And as innocent as some of the practices may sound, it wasn't the practices themselves, but the willingness to cleave to the customs of men and despise the ways of the Lord.

We'll be praying for you.

I believe you probably already know the answer to this question. I have a childhood friend who is a Methodist minister who shared with me her views on the topic. And it was surprisingly in line with ours. She pointed me to several websites that had similar takes on the topic. If you already know, why are you asking the question? Why wouldn't you use this opportunity to share that concordant belief instead of point out differences? You're assuming they had such a fellowship. The verses you point to indicate similarity and familiarity. You're stretching quite a bit to infer fellowship from those verses. But you're a master at stretching meaning out of Scripture that simply isn't there.

@pam I'm seeing tell-tale signs from several posters (including me) that indicates a distinct tendency to "self-quote" when trying to edit their post. Just an FYI.

I see this as a perfectly reasonable position. And I don't exactly outright reject the possibility either. I hold primarily two points: 1) The reasoning and arguments used (at least the couple dozen that I read) to assume the innuendo do not hold water when you consider all the usage. I also found no evidence that some of the assumptions made about meanings and customs were even verifiable. They seemed to be made up out of whole cloth. Could it still be so? Of course. But why jump to an unseemly conclusion when the preponderance of the evidence and stronger arguments indicate the simpler explanation is probably the correct one? People seem to want to believe something just because it is sensational, not because it is more likely or true. 2) Ruth was a virtuous woman. You noticed that too? Again, you're assuming things about my intent.