NeuroTypical

The last time I heard someone arguing against such advice was in 1991. All the smokers I know, already understand the health impacts. Do you have a story to tell us braun?

Sorry, let me take the namecalling out of it, before I end up having to issue myself an infraction. Oh no. Open carry people give me a couple of different reasons for arming themselves. Reasons I've personally been given include (and I'm paraphrasing here): "I'm exercising my 2nd amendment rights", "just educating the sheeple", "exposing governmental abuse", "I refuse to let my rights be trampled on by government thugs", and "I'm an American - that's the only reason I need". Yes, self defense is usually there too, although never, in the dozen or so conversations I've had with open-carry enthusaists over the years, never ever has 'self defense' been the only reason they've given me. Oh, I know they see themselves as such. And I know staunch constitutionalists such as yourself tend to see them in that light as well. But turning themselves into walking billboards for their idealogical point means they are not "just law abiding citizens". They are idealogues - which is fine - but no, they are not "just law abiding citizens".And 'due dilligence' is learning rights and laws and statutes. But they don't do this due dilligence to defend themselves, they do it so they can win arguments against cops and enable social change by posting stories of their encounters on gun forums, and videos on youtube. And exercising rights to self defense doesn't require wandering around in public raising anxiety of the people who really are just the law abiding citizens. I've sucessfully been legally carrying a firearm solely for the purpose of self defense, on and off for over a decade now, and I've never caused a scene or provoked an encounter with the police. No, they are absolutely NOT "just law abiding citizens exercising their right to defend themselves". They are idealogues out to prove a point and change the world. Again, nothing wrong with that, except for the deadly tools they employ, the occasional ignorance they demonstrate about what guns are and what they do, and the occasional psychological denial they sometimes carry about their motives and motivations. When I make a subjective evaluation of their maturity level, I figure many of them have more in common with this occupy protestor than they do with me and my conceal-carry buddies.

Their juvenile point is "I can carry a gun out in the open and you can't stop me because I know my rights so neener-neener." They are yay-hoos because they are using a deadly weapon as a tool in their desire to prove their point. In every open carry enthusaist I've ever encountered (including those I just encountered in your links), I see a lack of respect for their fellow man, for the police they force encounters with, and/or for the deadly nature and purpose of the tool they carry around.

Oh man. Open carry yay-hoos. What a bunch of children. They remind me of my 8 yr old daughter lecturing me on what's fair and what isn't. Except they're using deadly weapons to prove their juvenile points.

Life is a lot more fun when you live it in such a way to evoke such statements from folks before they realize they're making them. Sitting around trying to figure out whether someone should be offended or not? Where's the fun in that?

From what I can tell, there are two things going on here. First, there are some tremenduously evil people in the world who can commit acts of unspeakable horror. Second, the human brain sometimes responds to traumatic events by just inventing memories. For example, you can google up people who claim to have been abducted in Salt Lake and taken into the catacombs under the temple, where they were ritually molested by their father, their bishop, and Gordon B. Hinckley, who are actually shape-shifting lizard people. I never discount tales of horror that are pushing against the borders of believability. But neither do I discount the phenomenon of false recovered memories. In cases where I have insufficient facts to tell one way or the other, I am forced to abstain from judgement in the matter.

I forget the exact legal wording, but basically it's legal to use deadly force to stop such attacks in Utah. Remember the recent news from Texas where a guy killed a man who was trying to molest his daughter? He was never charged with anything.

Well, just to be clear, I believe a marriage partner should be one of the most selective, selfish choices one makes in life. So to each their own. That said, there's really little difference between garryw's comment and these:I don't think a racially acceptable heritage is too high a bar to ask for. I don't think inherited riches is too high a bar to ask for. I don't think at least a DD cup is too high a bar to ask for. I don't think naturally blonde hair is too high a bar to ask for. I don't think someone who has never broken a bone is too high a bar to ask for. I don't think perfect in-laws is too high a bar to ask for. I don't think total absence of freckles is too high a bar to ask for. Again, to each their own. And I've said this before, but yeah, folks who consider any mental issue a dealbreaker, really are doing everyone a favor by being upfront about such things. Why on earth would anyone want to date someone who finds an aspect of their existence 'below the bar'?

Agreed. I do not see anywhere where the BSOA excludes young scouts who may self-identify as homosexual. The last I heard, BSOA will not allow a self-proclaimed GLBT person to serve in a leadership position, but that was the extent of it. I also hear a bunch of goofy hating nonsense from blathering agenda-pushing partisans about "hating gays" and "not allowing gays" and whatnot, and until I get a better source on this, I'll assume AP writer David Crary just ignorantly fell for it, or is intentionally pushing it himself.

I have only limited experience with church discipline of felons with a violent or sexual element, but I know a little about it. What will often happen, is the church will wait until the legal system has run it's course, and whatever verdict or incarceration or declaration of mental status will be taken in as evidence by the church court.Remember, the purpose of church discipline is 3 fold: 1. Help the member through the repentence process (including confession and restitution) and remove the burden of sin. 2. Protect the flock from harm. 3. Protect the good name of the church. I, for one, am grateful to see such things displayed plainly in the news media. This is proof that we do not cover such things up, or shelter or protect predators just because they happen to be a church leader.

Does anyone have a link?

Yep - to us mormons, angels are just God's messengers. We are mortals, but members of the same race. No wings or halos on our angels. Full disclosure - not everybody here is a huge fan of that image. I remember mixed comments when they added it to the website, although mostly positive.

Well, it's less 'studying muay thai' and more 'exercise/workout based class held by a muay thai instructor'. But yes.

Yep, it didn't hurt me the least tinest bit. The only reason I knew I had been kicked, is because I heard a horrible crunching sound, and then watched the guy limp around for the rest of the class. He and his brother seemed to appreciate the humor too, but I can't bring myself to laugh about it, even though it wasn't even broken.

Yeah. I'm a peaceful guy. I've been in exactly one fight in my entire life, in middle school, which I lost horribly. But I managed to damage someone's toe (not as bad as this picture), just by standing there in Thai Kickboxing class with a dumb look on my face. My job was to hold the bag - other guy's job was to kick the bag and not me. I did my job, he needs more practice.

Yeah, I don't allow hollywood to control my moviewatching choices. I'll make my own decision based off reviews from people I trust. (And kids-in-mind.com does indeed rock.

I was perfectly happy not being in the adult section for all my pre-mod years. It can be an important resource for adults seeking advice though.

Hi yjacket. You're a bit closer, but you're still avoiding my direct, easy to understand, easy to answer question.I'm not asking about the intent of people obtaining loans. I'm not asking about the bank's recourse if the person stops paying. I'm not asking about scamsters. I'm not asking you to re-explain default processes or your opinion about them. For the third time - I'm asking you a simple yes or no question: If you, yjacket, are as upfront with a potential lender as you are being with us, do you, yjacket, honestly believe anyone would enter into a contract/mortgage/loan with you? "Hi there potential lender! I just wanted you to know that I don't believe any of this stuff I'm signing actually means I "must" make payments! That's not a problem for you, right?"

Could I ask you to answer the question I asked please?I didn't ask if lenders calculated default rates into their spreadsheets. Or if they added default rates into their interest rates. Or if they knew if a percentage of borrowers wouldn't make payments. Or the purpose of credit scores. Or what impact the Fed Reserve has on interest rates. I asked you a simple question: If you are as upfront with a potential lender as you are being with us, do you honestly believe anyone would enter into a contract/mortgage/loan with you? "Hi there potential lender! I just wanted you to know that I don't believe any of this stuff I'm signing actually means I "must" make payments! That's not a problem for you, right?"

Huh. So:"Hi there potential lender! I just wanted you to know that I don't believe any of this stuff I'm signing actually means I "must" make payments! That's not a problem for you, right?" If you're as upfront with a potential lender as you're being with us, do you honestly believe anyone would enter into a contract/mortgage/loan with you? I mean, cell phone and cable companies are always happy to, because of the early cancellation fees. But a car or a house?

A foreclosure process is not necessarily an indication that someone is being dishonest. Many times, it is a process through which someone goes, so they can remain honest with their fellow man.

Oh that's easy. Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes. Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands. - Judge Leland Hand, US Court of Appeals, 1935 Of course, in the arena of negative-word games, talk of "rich business tycoons" equates pretty well to talk of "deadbeat welfare queens".

The only good answer we can give you is "maybe". Bishops handle such things on a case by case basis, with the guidance of the spirit. One thing to keep in mind - no bishop can "make" you do anything.

Hey alucar - do I read correctly? Are you honestly 37 years old? I really thought you were some opinionated idealistic teenager getting ready for several years of coming down life's learning curve. If you're really 37, then you've got a couple of decades of life experience behind your ideas. I'm interested - how have your standards and opinions been working for you? How's your dating life? Got wife?

Pianist, you're generalizing with a pretty broad brush there. Nobody who has ever been sexually abused will ever be good marriage material? I'm sorry that you seem to think that way about yourself, but you don't get to place such a horrible judgement on all other folks who are struggling with similar burdens.It is true that sexual abuse can be a terrible burden that will impact relationships. But no pianist, you don't get to take away hope from people who carry a little baggage in that area. I'm going on 14 years with a chick on antidepressants who has been through sexual abuse and counseling. Our marriage has not been easy. Normal folk tell me no marriage is easy. But I can't begin to explain the wonderfulness of the shared humor, the deepness of the love, how unforgettably great the high points are. Normal folk tell me that doesn't always happen in a normal marriage. This link should have been posted in this thread by now: Myths about Mental Illness By Elder Alexander B. Morrison Of the Seventy