1838 Mormon War was when Governor Boggs signed the Extermination Order legalizing the murder of Mormons. I believe that when you are attacked, you have the right to defend yourself.
Mormon War in Illinois. Non-Mormons organized a "wolf hunt" (wolf is code for Mormon). Governor Ford revoked ownership of Nauvoo from the Mormons. Joseph Smith Jr was murdered while awaiting a trial. As a result of this war, the Mormons walked to what was then a mostly uninhabited part of Mexico.
Battle Creek Massacre - Mormons attacked the Timpanogos Indians who had stolen horses and other livestock from Mormons. Between 4 and 7 Indians died.
William McBride Massacre - conflict over natural resources and Goshute Indians stealing cattle from Mormons.
Walker War. James Walker Ivie killed a Ute Indian who was confronting his wife. The Utes demanded a White man to die to make things even. When the Mormons refused, it escalated into a war where about a dozen natives and a dozen Mormons died.
Utah War - the US sent the Army to march against Utah Territory; Mormons defended themselves by attacking supply trains and scattering livestock.
Morrisite War - the Utah Militia marched against the Church of the Firstborn (also known as Morrites). The Morrisite Church was a splinter group which lived in a commune. They felt dissenters were taking better material goods than when they joined. The militia was necessary to reach a settlement.
Black Hawk War - various tribes in Utah Territory attack the Mormon settlers; included the Circleville Massacre.
While that list contains incidents where Mormons were victims as well as perpetrators, they were pretty violent in the early days of the religion. Over the years Mormonism has gotten less violent (and also much less tolerant of polygamy, to the point now where it is no longer openly permitted if I understand correctly). It would be more fair to say that Mormonism has evolved so that it no longer promotes/tolerates violence nor polygamy, just as modern day Christianity mostly does not (barring of course evangelicals who are pushing for wars in the Middle East in order to start the second coming/rapture/Armageddon).
In 1890 the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints officially announced that no new polygamous marriages would be sanctioned. The Endowment House was destroyed because rumor had it there were rogue polygamous marriages performed there. In 1905 the First Presidency reaffirmed that anyone entering into a new polygamous marriage would be excommunicated. Polygamy is prohibited by the Utah State Constitution as a condition of statehood.
This is the issue for Islam: there are many within it that are resisting efforts to modernize the religion. If you want to fix things you can't demonize Islam, you have to support those within the religion who want to moderate and modernize Islam.
If you consider ejecting young men out of your society, into a foreign culture where they are entirely unprepared to survive much less succeed to be nonviolent, then the Mormon practice of polygyny would be nonviolent.
Simply put, polygyny leaves the unmarried men at a significant disadvantage, and in authoritarian societies can lead to such expulsions, or outright violence. Mormons are not so inclined to murder their young men, so expulsion was the most common result. Recently only the fringe fundamentalist Mormon sects practice this, and with predictable results.
The practice of expelling young men was not done by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; this is something the fundamentalist splinter groups have started.
What part of the Mormons' involvement in the Mountain Meadows Massacre was considered to be "defense", do you figure?
There is much misinformation about the Mountain Meadows Massacre. It was organized and carried out by a Stake President (Isaac Haight) and the bishops serving under him. The Church condemned the action of those who participated.
As to what part was self defense, there were numerous circumstances that combined to create a perfect storm. The US Army was marching against Utah territory in response to a non-existent rebellion (politicians back East were telling all kinds of lies to destroy the LdS for its practice of polygamy). It was speculated that this wagon train was an advance party of the army. Members of the caravan bragged of having been in the mob which murdered Joseph Smith Jr. Other members of the caravan bragged of helping track down Parley P Pratt (an Apostle) so that Hector McLean could murder him after McLean failed to get justice from 2 judges (Hector's wife left him because he beat her. Parley P Pratt knocked on her mother's door as a missionary. Hector's ex-wife got baptized and eventually became Parley's 12th wife). Part could be that Brigham Young, as Territorial Governor, had placed the Territory under martial law in preparation of the approaching army and prohibited trade with outsiders. Members of the caravan were counting on fresh supplies in Utah, but when city after city refused to sell them supplies, members of the caravan got more and more verbal in their threats against Mormons. Part could be that an ox owned by the caravan died and the body exposed anthrax into a city's well (to this day there are people who believe this was done on purpose in retaliation for not trading for supplies).
John D Lee is my 3rd great grandfather. He was a bishop in Cedar City under Isaac Haight. As the caravan approached, the bishops and the stake president met in counsel to decide what to do. Haight agreed to send a courier to Brigham Young for instructions. A few days later Haight claimed to have received a letter from Brigham Young to kill every man, woman, and child. The day after the deed was done, a rider came into town with the real letter from Brigham Young saying to let the caravan pass in peace. Haight's alleged letter from Brigham Young was never seen by anyone else. Once word of the massacre reached Brigham Young, he sent another letter to John D Lee (Brigham adopted John before the trek west) sending him into hiding.
Was arresting Smith 'violence against Mormons' when he was just a conman? Did it only become 'violence against Mormons' when he became a prophet/conman?
Joseph Smith Jr was NEVER committed of any crime.
Was it 'violence against Mormons' when he was tarred feathered and run out of town on a rail for what he said to the 15 year old daughter of the town banker? That was AFTER he started his big religion scam.
You have your stories mixed up. Joseph Smith Jr was tarred and feathered multiple times before introducing polygamy.
The Mormons were violent when they practiced polygamy. Today it is not practiced by Mormons except for some fringe groups. One thing that is certain, young men without women are a problem regardless of religion.
Do you care to provide evidence of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints being violent the decades we practiced polygamy? The only violence I am aware of was in self defense or retaliation for violence inflicted upon us first. You burn down my barn because of my religion and I might return the favor. You send an army to march against us and we may do damage to your supply trains and wagons. You come into our territory (we walked THOUSANDS of miles to avoid conflict) bragging about murdering our Prophet or one of our Apostles or yelling that you are going to kill some damn Mormons, then some individuals (condemned by the Church) may take matters into their own hands.
Look up the documentary "The lost Boys" on how the Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints (a Mormson off shoot that practices polygamy) Literally kicks out excess male children. May not be a war, but it is violent and sick regardless, and that is here in the USA.
First a little background. My family joined The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the 1830s. Several of my 3rd great grandfathers had multiple wives.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints officially prohibited new polygamous marriages in 1890, though existing polygamists were not forced to divorce any wives. The Endowment House in Salt Lake City was ordered destroyed by the Prophet based on rumors of unauthorized polygamous marriages being performed there. The Utah State Constitution explicitly forbids polygamy. In 1905 the First President reaffirmed that any member entering into a polygamous relationship would be excommunicated. The LdS Church has no formal relationship with any of the "fundamentalist" groups which splintered.
In other words you called me out for stating something you already knew and believe, just using different words (and furthermore accuse me of whining).
I was calling you out on what specific issue you have with the Affordable care act. Since you have no specific complaint what would you call it other than whining?
Specific issues with ObamaCare? Premiums going up by 25% on an annual basis to get the same coverage. Forcing everyone to purchase a product. The whole we need to pass it so we'll have time to read it. I believe I mentioned at least some of these earlier in the thread.
I always thought that repeal and replace was the wrong order. We first need a viable alternative, then we can dismantle ObamaCare.
So how would you know? He could cut and paste the entire affordable care act, call something else and say it helps whomever he wants to please and you wouldn't know.
I know the talking points of ObamaCare. I could download the text of the two documents and run diff of them to see what's different.
Three clauses (Sec. 10407) (Sec. 10408) (Sec. 10409) makes it look like they really want to nail down where diabetes comes from, do you object to that? Health care for uninsured (Sec. 10504)? Taking care of Coal miners (Sec. 1556) with black lung and their family? Do you object to prohibiting genetic screening to refuse insurance? What about children's healthcare and preventing States from excluding them? That directly affects you. You want to repeal all that?
There are a few points of ObamaCare that I do like. My sister-in-law was only able to get coverage because of ObamaCare (pre-existing condition). According to ObamaCare, insurance is mandatory (or you pay an extra tax, despite Obama promising there wouldn't be a new tax), so section 10504 is not necessary. Besides, ERs already were obligated to stabilize patients who couldn't pay.
There are some warts here, however as someone with no dog in this fight, as act of law to look after people, this is pretty good, there is a lot more here than I mentioned. You certainly have a lot to lose, from what I've read so far, from it being repealed.
My biggest beefs are that it was forced through without giving our lawmakers time to read it and forcing everyone to get insurance. I also don't believe it to be fiscally sustainable.
Is it because it's an Obama thing and it has to go? I don't understand how a country can be so polarized that they will destroy something that really does make america great again?
As much as I dislike Obama, my love for the USA is greater. I was raised to respect the office of POTUS even if I disagree with whoever occupies the office.
I'm not having a go at you or being a cunt to you, I'm trying to cut through the political bullshit to get to the issue. Conservatives raised valid points about this act regarding insurance company welfare and that has somehow transmuted to it's gotta go - Wouldn't it be easier just to fix it?
It's so long that few people have read it in its entirety. It's easier to write a new document (yes, borrowing good ideas from ObamaCare) than to make an amendment.
I have a full-time job and look over my kids while my wife is at her part-time job; I don't have the luxury of 4 hours to digest legalese. I have heard some of the weak points, such as millions of people will lose eligibility.
Excuses 101.
Let me put it another way, 20 sections of this law are related to children's health and could save you, personally a lot of money. Have you considered reading it just to understand what is in it for you? Isn't that worth a few hours so you are immune to the political dogma?
Based on what my employer offers I do not qualify for any ObamaCare plan, so none of it is pertinent to me except that premiums go up because it's a mandatory product.
Did you notice if it affected how your food tasted? If you had the same dish that you ate in a 'stinky' environment, would your experience of it be similar or different?
Actually, I haven't had any of the same dishes since coming back to the states. My wife (who is Brazilian) uses different spices here than there. She does say, though, that our chickens taste different, so she cleans our chicken with lime juice before preparing meals.
For reasons I can't explain, people who say JIFF annoy me to no end. It's like, I know it doesn't matter, but for effs sake, learn English. The G is for 'graphics', hence by the acronym rule, it's GIF as in 'gift'. And beyond that, just according to the rules of English, there's no trailing 'e' or 'y' to transmute it into a 'j' sound. There is literally no rule in English for it be pronounced in the bastardized way.
D-ah-S I agree with, again, no trailing 'e' to create a hard 'O' sound.
The hard "G" folks always strike me as pedants who want to be technically correct, despite the fact that they are swimming against the tide. Like it or not, the war was lost decades ago. Now go back under your bridge and complain about the common pronunciation for gin and tonic.
I use the hard "G" sound in GIF to distinguish it from the JIFF format.
I cannot think of anywhere where there are paved roads
We clearly have different definitions. In my American English, there are two kinds of roads: paved and dirt. Paved means any kind of hardened surface, including asphalt, concrete, etc.
I spent my formative years in Hawaii where Hawaiian Creole English (commonly called Pidgin by us locals) was taught in school as "English". However, my grandmother taught American English on the mainland and tried to ensure we could speak and understand "proper" English. This background could mean my experience does not match most Americans.
Where words have more specificity, use those that are more specific.
For the summary's example of pavement versus sidewalk, pavement is less specific than sidewalk. Pavement refers to an improved surface and just as easily could mean a roadway, while sidewalk pretty specifically indicates an improved surface that is meant for pedestrians rather than vehicles.
I always thought of pavement as the material used to pave a pathway. "Stay on the pavement" means to stay on the part of the road which is paved, etc. I hear "road" or "street" more than "roadway". I've heard of paved sidewalks (as opposed to cobblestone or dirt), but haven't heard of sidewalks called pavement.
America still has regionalities itself though, it's not like it's one homogeneous language region. It'd be wicked pissah to spill your Moxie on the hottop when opening the cah doah and you'd be bull if you did.
My dad used to be able to distinguish pronunciation and vocab from 20 regions in the state of Utah. Utahns love poking fun at Spanish Fork where they pronounce "Fork" as "Fark".
Just eat it properly cooked instead of half done or bloody. People weren't completely stupid even if they did not realize why food could be harmful they learned to avoid it, as a result religions banned food that carried parasites or was hard to prepare as evil.
I believe this is the original reason Jews and Muslims had foods marked as "unclean" - pork, meat that still had blood, etc. As a Christian, I believe these kosher / halal laws were God trying to teach people how to keep healthy in a way they could understand.
One thing that NO reenactment community accurately portrays is the constant presence of raw, exposed sewage, particularly in urban areas like London or Paris.
People managed to get through their daily lives, walking along canals of sewage, or with chamber pots stinking up the interiors without so much as an eieeewww, because they were used to it, or as we say today 'Nose Blind'.
I have to wonder if this single olfactory impact would have a significant effect on taste and flavor
I spent 2 years in Brazil and passed through many places where there was a raw sewage river on the side of the road. I learned not to make faces in order to not offend the locals. I also got used to not putting toilet paper in the toilet (lack of water pressure meant clogged toilets). You get used to whatever your normal is.
I've got no dog in this fight. I'm prepared to give Trump the benefit of the doubt however I just think it's sad that Billary and Trump were the best options the two party system could produce. You can get all upset and offended and throw out your pointless little jibes at me or you can see that I am making a observation based in valid concerns and try to have a reasoned discussion.
We know that Hillary bought the Democrat nomination (as per Brazil), but I don't know how Trump got the Republican nomination. As a conservative, he wasn't in my top 3 choices.
There is a big difference between the President creating laws and proposing legislation. Trump has petitioned Congress on numerous occasions to repeal and replace ObamaCare.
I know the president can't pass the laws he proposes, I wasn't suggesting that he does. There is nothing preventing him proposing legislation to fix it. Just saying repeal and replace is not leading, it's outsourcing the problem and complaining that no-one else is doing anything about it.
In other words he should put up or shut up.
In other words you called me out for stating something you already knew and believe, just using different words (and furthermore accuse me of whining).
The skeptic in me wouldn't want Trump to come up with the specifics of a new national health care system.
Why?
Trump is out of touch with the middle class. As a business leader, I think he'd look out for what's best for his companies instead of what's best for Americans.
I whole heartedly agree that ObamaCare is broken. Affordable is a misnomer; my premiums went up by 25% last year and seems to be about the same rate this year for the same level of coverage.
However, it's not all broken. A bunch of it looks like corporate welfare to the insurance companies for a start. So why not pick out the broken bits and fix that first. Asking to chuck it out and then start again is about as stupid as a proposal as I have ever heard.
I always thought that repeal and replace was the wrong order. We first need a viable alternative, then we can dismantle ObamaCare.
I don't know how to fix ObamaCare in a way that is fiscally responsible and meets the middle-class needs.
Then you be the leader. Figure out what is wrong and propose changes in H.R.3590 - Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which is literally maybe an afternoon to read and understand, I just did and can already see the weak points. Write to the president and propose the changes yourself. Or are you just looking for a reason to whine and complain?
Citizenship 101.
I have a full-time job and look over my kids while my wife is at her part-time job; I don't have the luxury of 4 hours to digest legalese. I have heard some of the weak points, such as millions of people will lose eligibility.
Note that the President can ask Congress / the Senate, but the President can't create laws on his or her own.
Yeah, it's probably a bit much to ask the leader to, you know, lead.
It's a bit much to expect you to open your mouth without spin, but c'est la vie. There is a big difference between the President creating laws and proposing legislation. Trump has petitioned Congress on numerous occasions to repeal and replace ObamaCare.
If Congress has adjourned without acting on proposals, the president may call a special session of the Congress.
My fellow Americans, As President I have set forth legislative proposals to Obamacare. Congress has refused to pass these vital amendments that I, as President, deem necessary to make healthcare fair for all Americans. I have called a special session of Congress to debate these important amendments in an effort to have them pass into law, for all Americans, God Bless America.
Leadership 101.
The skeptic in me wouldn't want Trump to come up with the specifics of a new national health care system. I whole heartedly agree that ObamaCare is broken. Affordable is a misnomer; my premiums went up by 25% last year and seems to be about the same rate this year for the same level of coverage. I don't know how to fix ObamaCare in a way that is fiscally responsible and meets the middle-class needs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...The president may personally propose legislation in annual and special messages to Congress including the annual State of the Union address and joint sessions of Congress. If Congress has adjourned without acting on proposals, the president may call a special session of the Congress.
Note that the President can ask Congress / the Senate, but the President can't create laws on his or her own.
There was no way to verify that other countries kept their vague promises.
It's pretty easy actually. NASA's Earth science satellites can measure pollutants in the atmosphere. People on the ground can take independent measurements. It's impossible to hide pollution on the scale that it is being emitted, and we know how much each country is emitting with a very high degree of certainty.
OK, then replace my phrase with the equally discouraging one that's there's no enforcement in the treaty.
The President can't single-handedly repeal ObamaCare. Since it's a budget act, Congress must pass a bill which the Senate approves and hands to the President to ratify.
Itâ(TM)s not symmetric. The obligations of the US are very different than those of Syria or any other country. Insulting individuals who take issue with that is just cruel marketing.
The United States was the only country to make concrete promises. There was no way to verify that other countries kept their vague promises. The US should reduce its pollution, but never enter into such a lop-sided "agreement".
When do we ban cars? The shit coming out of their tailpipes is many times worse than whats coming out of traditional cigarettes, let alone the harmless vapor from an ecig.
There are emission tests for cars. If a car doesn't pass the emission test, it's registration gets revoked. Every decade the emission regulations get more stringent. Many cities have laws against idling your car except in cases of extreme temperature.
So now that they have deemed vapor a harmful pollutant. Are we going to ban restaurants who bring out a nice piping hot plate of food releasing its steam vapor? After all someone might be allergic to something in that steam. Or offended by the smell of cooked pork.
With the number of rich jews in new york I am surprised they haven't banned the sale of "unclean meat" in restaurants. After all you don't want to be limited to what restaurants you can go to, or worry that there was an "unclean piece of meat" in that frying pan just before your fish went into it.
Risk of offending someone is not a high enough cause to ban something. If a restaurant marks a dish as kosher or halal then the restaurant needs to take all necessary precautions to meet those requirements. As to allergies, I've entered into restaurants which have a sign warning about possible peanut dust in the air so people can choose whether to enter. Many of our snacks have warnings that although this snack should not normally contain nuts, it was made on the same equipment which processes nuts.
Can you sell alcohol indiscriminately in this theoretical bar...? Can you decide to sell it to 15 year olds?
A business owner should have the right to determine which (otherwise legal) activities to curtail on their property. A restaurant owner may choose to ban alcohol even though alcohol is legal to those 21 or older. However, that same restaurant owner cannot sell alcohol to minors because of the laws in place. It is legal to wear hats and sunglasses, but banks ban their use.
Slashdot Mirror
Right, and Mormon Island just 'accidently' caught fire after they refused to tithe.
Sammuel Brannan wasn't collecting tithing for Brigham Young.
Polygamy isn't responsible for violence. The Mormons, weird as they are, are not violent.
????? Want to check your facts on that?
1838 Mormon War was when Governor Boggs signed the Extermination Order legalizing the murder of Mormons. I believe that when you are attacked, you have the right to defend yourself.
Mormon War in Illinois. Non-Mormons organized a "wolf hunt" (wolf is code for Mormon). Governor Ford revoked ownership of Nauvoo from the Mormons. Joseph Smith Jr was murdered while awaiting a trial. As a result of this war, the Mormons walked to what was then a mostly uninhabited part of Mexico.
Battle Creek Massacre - Mormons attacked the Timpanogos Indians who had stolen horses and other livestock from Mormons. Between 4 and 7 Indians died.
Battle at Fort Utah - Mormons attack hostile Timpanogos Indians.
William McBride Massacre - conflict over natural resources and Goshute Indians stealing cattle from Mormons.
Walker War. James Walker Ivie killed a Ute Indian who was confronting his wife. The Utes demanded a White man to die to make things even. When the Mormons refused, it escalated into a war where about a dozen natives and a dozen Mormons died.
Mountain Meadows Massacre addressed elsewhere.
Utah War - the US sent the Army to march against Utah Territory; Mormons defended themselves by attacking supply trains and scattering livestock.
Morrisite War - the Utah Militia marched against the Church of the Firstborn (also known as Morrites). The Morrisite Church was a splinter group which lived in a commune. They felt dissenters were taking better material goods than when they joined. The militia was necessary to reach a settlement.
Black Hawk War - various tribes in Utah Territory attack the Mormon settlers; included the Circleville Massacre.
While that list contains incidents where Mormons were victims as well as perpetrators, they were pretty violent in the early days of the religion. Over the years Mormonism has gotten less violent (and also much less tolerant of polygamy, to the point now where it is no longer openly permitted if I understand correctly). It would be more fair to say that Mormonism has evolved so that it no longer promotes/tolerates violence nor polygamy, just as modern day Christianity mostly does not (barring of course evangelicals who are pushing for wars in the Middle East in order to start the second coming/rapture/Armageddon).
In 1890 the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints officially announced that no new polygamous marriages would be sanctioned. The Endowment House was destroyed because rumor had it there were rogue polygamous marriages performed there. In 1905 the First Presidency reaffirmed that anyone entering into a new polygamous marriage would be excommunicated. Polygamy is prohibited by the Utah State Constitution as a condition of statehood.
This is the issue for Islam: there are many within it that are resisting efforts to modernize the religion. If you want to fix things you can't demonize Islam, you have to support those within the religion who want to moderate and modernize Islam.
If you consider ejecting young men out of your society, into a foreign culture where they are entirely unprepared to survive much less succeed to be nonviolent, then the Mormon practice of polygyny would be nonviolent.
Simply put, polygyny leaves the unmarried men at a significant disadvantage, and in authoritarian societies can lead to such expulsions, or outright violence. Mormons are not so inclined to murder their young men, so expulsion was the most common result. Recently only the fringe fundamentalist Mormon sects practice this, and with predictable results.
The practice of expelling young men was not done by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; this is something the fundamentalist splinter groups have started.
What part of the Mormons' involvement in the Mountain Meadows Massacre was considered to be "defense", do you figure?
There is much misinformation about the Mountain Meadows Massacre. It was organized and carried out by a Stake President (Isaac Haight) and the bishops serving under him. The Church condemned the action of those who participated.
As to what part was self defense, there were numerous circumstances that combined to create a perfect storm. The US Army was marching against Utah territory in response to a non-existent rebellion (politicians back East were telling all kinds of lies to destroy the LdS for its practice of polygamy). It was speculated that this wagon train was an advance party of the army. Members of the caravan bragged of having been in the mob which murdered Joseph Smith Jr. Other members of the caravan bragged of helping track down Parley P Pratt (an Apostle) so that Hector McLean could murder him after McLean failed to get justice from 2 judges (Hector's wife left him because he beat her. Parley P Pratt knocked on her mother's door as a missionary. Hector's ex-wife got baptized and eventually became Parley's 12th wife). Part could be that Brigham Young, as Territorial Governor, had placed the Territory under martial law in preparation of the approaching army and prohibited trade with outsiders. Members of the caravan were counting on fresh supplies in Utah, but when city after city refused to sell them supplies, members of the caravan got more and more verbal in their threats against Mormons. Part could be that an ox owned by the caravan died and the body exposed anthrax into a city's well (to this day there are people who believe this was done on purpose in retaliation for not trading for supplies).
John D Lee is my 3rd great grandfather. He was a bishop in Cedar City under Isaac Haight. As the caravan approached, the bishops and the stake president met in counsel to decide what to do. Haight agreed to send a courier to Brigham Young for instructions. A few days later Haight claimed to have received a letter from Brigham Young to kill every man, woman, and child. The day after the deed was done, a rider came into town with the real letter from Brigham Young saying to let the caravan pass in peace. Haight's alleged letter from Brigham Young was never seen by anyone else. Once word of the massacre reached Brigham Young, he sent another letter to John D Lee (Brigham adopted John before the trek west) sending him into hiding.
Was arresting Smith 'violence against Mormons' when he was just a conman? Did it only become 'violence against Mormons' when he became a prophet/conman?
Joseph Smith Jr was NEVER committed of any crime.
Was it 'violence against Mormons' when he was tarred feathered and run out of town on a rail for what he said to the 15 year old daughter of the town banker? That was AFTER he started his big religion scam.
You have your stories mixed up. Joseph Smith Jr was tarred and feathered multiple times before introducing polygamy.
The Mormons were violent when they practiced polygamy. Today it is not practiced by Mormons except for some fringe groups. One thing that is certain, young men without women are a problem regardless of religion.
Do you care to provide evidence of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints being violent the decades we practiced polygamy? The only violence I am aware of was in self defense or retaliation for violence inflicted upon us first. You burn down my barn because of my religion and I might return the favor. You send an army to march against us and we may do damage to your supply trains and wagons. You come into our territory (we walked THOUSANDS of miles to avoid conflict) bragging about murdering our Prophet or one of our Apostles or yelling that you are going to kill some damn Mormons, then some individuals (condemned by the Church) may take matters into their own hands.
Look up the documentary "The lost Boys" on how the Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints (a Mormson off shoot that practices polygamy) Literally kicks out excess male children. May not be a war, but it is violent and sick regardless, and that is here in the USA.
First a little background. My family joined The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the 1830s. Several of my 3rd great grandfathers had multiple wives.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints officially prohibited new polygamous marriages in 1890, though existing polygamists were not forced to divorce any wives. The Endowment House in Salt Lake City was ordered destroyed by the Prophet based on rumors of unauthorized polygamous marriages being performed there. The Utah State Constitution explicitly forbids polygamy. In 1905 the First President reaffirmed that any member entering into a polygamous relationship would be excommunicated. The LdS Church has no formal relationship with any of the "fundamentalist" groups which splintered.
Incidentally you can see why the UK didn't deal with the rebellion in the US when you realise they had more pressing problems closer to home
The French landed troops in Ireland in 1796 and 1798
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Incidentally, the colonies declared independence in 1776; I doubt events of 1796 influenced the Revolutionary War much.
In other words you called me out for stating something you already knew and believe, just using different words (and furthermore accuse me of whining).
I was calling you out on what specific issue you have with the Affordable care act. Since you have no specific complaint what would you call it other than whining?
Specific issues with ObamaCare? Premiums going up by 25% on an annual basis to get the same coverage. Forcing everyone to purchase a product. The whole we need to pass it so we'll have time to read it. I believe I mentioned at least some of these earlier in the thread.
I always thought that repeal and replace was the wrong order. We first need a viable alternative, then we can dismantle ObamaCare.
So how would you know? He could cut and paste the entire affordable care act, call something else and say it helps whomever he wants to please and you wouldn't know.
I know the talking points of ObamaCare. I could download the text of the two documents and run diff of them to see what's different.
Three clauses (Sec. 10407) (Sec. 10408) (Sec. 10409) makes it look like they really want to nail down where diabetes comes from, do you object to that? Health care for uninsured (Sec. 10504)? Taking care of Coal miners (Sec. 1556) with black lung and their family? Do you object to prohibiting genetic screening to refuse insurance? What about children's healthcare and preventing States from excluding them? That directly affects you. You want to repeal all that?
There are a few points of ObamaCare that I do like. My sister-in-law was only able to get coverage because of ObamaCare (pre-existing condition). According to ObamaCare, insurance is mandatory (or you pay an extra tax, despite Obama promising there wouldn't be a new tax), so section 10504 is not necessary. Besides, ERs already were obligated to stabilize patients who couldn't pay.
There are some warts here, however as someone with no dog in this fight, as act of law to look after people, this is pretty good, there is a lot more here than I mentioned. You certainly have a lot to lose, from what I've read so far, from it being repealed.
My biggest beefs are that it was forced through without giving our lawmakers time to read it and forcing everyone to get insurance. I also don't believe it to be fiscally sustainable.
Is it because it's an Obama thing and it has to go? I don't understand how a country can be so polarized that they will destroy something that really does make america great again?
As much as I dislike Obama, my love for the USA is greater. I was raised to respect the office of POTUS even if I disagree with whoever occupies the office.
I'm not having a go at you or being a cunt to you, I'm trying to cut through the political bullshit to get to the issue. Conservatives raised valid points about this act regarding insurance company welfare and that has somehow transmuted to it's gotta go - Wouldn't it be easier just to fix it?
It's so long that few people have read it in its entirety. It's easier to write a new document (yes, borrowing good ideas from ObamaCare) than to make an amendment.
I have a full-time job and look over my kids while my wife is at her part-time job; I don't have the luxury of 4 hours to digest legalese. I have heard some of the weak points, such as millions of people will lose eligibility.
Excuses 101.
Let me put it another way, 20 sections of this law are related to children's health and could save you, personally a lot of money. Have you considered reading it just to understand what is in it for you? Isn't that worth a few hours so you are immune to the political dogma?
Based on what my employer offers I do not qualify for any ObamaCare plan, so none of it is pertinent to me except that premiums go up because it's a mandatory product.
Did you notice if it affected how your food tasted? If you had the same dish that you ate in a 'stinky' environment, would your experience of it be similar or different?
Actually, I haven't had any of the same dishes since coming back to the states. My wife (who is Brazilian) uses different spices here than there. She does say, though, that our chickens taste different, so she cleans our chicken with lime juice before preparing meals.
For reasons I can't explain, people who say JIFF annoy me to no end. It's like, I know it doesn't matter, but for effs sake, learn English. The G is for 'graphics', hence by the acronym rule, it's GIF as in 'gift'. And beyond that, just according to the rules of English, there's no trailing 'e' or 'y' to transmute it into a 'j' sound. There is literally no rule in English for it be pronounced in the bastardized way.
D-ah-S I agree with, again, no trailing 'e' to create a hard 'O' sound.
The hard "G" folks always strike me as pedants who want to be technically correct, despite the fact that they are swimming against the tide. Like it or not, the war was lost decades ago. Now go back under your bridge and complain about the common pronunciation for gin and tonic.
I use the hard "G" sound in GIF to distinguish it from the JIFF format.
I cannot think of anywhere where there are paved roads
We clearly have different definitions. In my American English, there are two kinds of roads: paved and dirt. Paved means any kind of hardened surface, including asphalt, concrete, etc.
You forgot gravel roads and the rare cobblestone.
I spent my formative years in Hawaii where Hawaiian Creole English (commonly called Pidgin by us locals) was taught in school as "English". However, my grandmother taught American English on the mainland and tried to ensure we could speak and understand "proper" English. This background could mean my experience does not match most Americans.
Where words have more specificity, use those that are more specific.
For the summary's example of pavement versus sidewalk, pavement is less specific than sidewalk. Pavement refers to an improved surface and just as easily could mean a roadway, while sidewalk pretty specifically indicates an improved surface that is meant for pedestrians rather than vehicles.
I always thought of pavement as the material used to pave a pathway. "Stay on the pavement" means to stay on the part of the road which is paved, etc. I hear "road" or "street" more than "roadway". I've heard of paved sidewalks (as opposed to cobblestone or dirt), but haven't heard of sidewalks called pavement.
America still has regionalities itself though, it's not like it's one homogeneous language region. It'd be wicked pissah to spill your Moxie on the hottop when opening the cah doah and you'd be bull if you did.
My dad used to be able to distinguish pronunciation and vocab from 20 regions in the state of Utah. Utahns love poking fun at Spanish Fork where they pronounce "Fork" as "Fark".
Iâ(TM)ve never heard an American use the term âImperialâ(TM) units, and I lived in Denver for three years. It was always âEnglishâ(TM) units.
I've lived in the US for 39 years (this excludes 2 years in Brazil) and I heard "Imperial units" more than "English units".
Just eat it properly cooked instead of half done or bloody. People weren't completely stupid even if they did not realize why food could be harmful they learned to avoid it, as a result religions banned food that carried parasites or was hard to prepare as evil.
I believe this is the original reason Jews and Muslims had foods marked as "unclean" - pork, meat that still had blood, etc. As a Christian, I believe these kosher / halal laws were God trying to teach people how to keep healthy in a way they could understand.
One thing that NO reenactment community accurately portrays is the constant presence of raw, exposed sewage, particularly in urban areas like London or Paris.
People managed to get through their daily lives, walking along canals of sewage, or with chamber pots stinking up the interiors without so much as an eieeewww, because they were used to it, or as we say today 'Nose Blind'.
I have to wonder if this single olfactory impact would have a significant effect on taste and flavor
I spent 2 years in Brazil and passed through many places where there was a raw sewage river on the side of the road. I learned not to make faces in order to not offend the locals. I also got used to not putting toilet paper in the toilet (lack of water pressure meant clogged toilets). You get used to whatever your normal is.
I've got no dog in this fight. I'm prepared to give Trump the benefit of the doubt however I just think it's sad that Billary and Trump were the best options the two party system could produce. You can get all upset and offended and throw out your pointless little jibes at me or you can see that I am making a observation based in valid concerns and try to have a reasoned discussion.
We know that Hillary bought the Democrat nomination (as per Brazil), but I don't know how Trump got the Republican nomination. As a conservative, he wasn't in my top 3 choices.
There is a big difference between the President creating laws and proposing legislation. Trump has petitioned Congress on numerous occasions to repeal and replace ObamaCare.
I know the president can't pass the laws he proposes, I wasn't suggesting that he does. There is nothing preventing him proposing legislation to fix it. Just saying repeal and replace is not leading, it's outsourcing the problem and complaining that no-one else is doing anything about it.
In other words he should put up or shut up.
In other words you called me out for stating something you already knew and believe, just using different words (and furthermore accuse me of whining).
The skeptic in me wouldn't want Trump to come up with the specifics of a new national health care system.
Why?
Trump is out of touch with the middle class. As a business leader, I think he'd look out for what's best for his companies instead of what's best for Americans.
I whole heartedly agree that ObamaCare is broken. Affordable is a misnomer; my premiums went up by 25% last year and seems to be about the same rate this year for the same level of coverage.
However, it's not all broken. A bunch of it looks like corporate welfare to the insurance companies for a start. So why not pick out the broken bits and fix that first. Asking to chuck it out and then start again is about as stupid as a proposal as I have ever heard.
I always thought that repeal and replace was the wrong order. We first need a viable alternative, then we can dismantle ObamaCare.
I don't know how to fix ObamaCare in a way that is fiscally responsible and meets the middle-class needs.
Then you be the leader. Figure out what is wrong and propose changes in H.R.3590 - Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which is literally maybe an afternoon to read and understand, I just did and can already see the weak points. Write to the president and propose the changes yourself. Or are you just looking for a reason to whine and complain?
Citizenship 101.
I have a full-time job and look over my kids while my wife is at her part-time job; I don't have the luxury of 4 hours to digest legalese. I have heard some of the weak points, such as millions of people will lose eligibility.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... The president may personally propose legislation
Note that the President can ask Congress / the Senate, but the President can't create laws on his or her own.
Yeah, it's probably a bit much to ask the leader to, you know, lead.
It's a bit much to expect you to open your mouth without spin, but c'est la vie. There is a big difference between the President creating laws and proposing legislation. Trump has petitioned Congress on numerous occasions to repeal and replace ObamaCare.
If Congress has adjourned without acting on proposals, the president may call a special session of the Congress.
My fellow Americans, As President I have set forth legislative proposals to Obamacare. Congress has refused to pass these vital amendments that I, as President, deem necessary to make healthcare fair for all Americans. I have called a special session of Congress to debate these important amendments in an effort to have them pass into law, for all Americans, God Bless America.
Leadership 101.
The skeptic in me wouldn't want Trump to come up with the specifics of a new national health care system. I whole heartedly agree that ObamaCare is broken. Affordable is a misnomer; my premiums went up by 25% last year and seems to be about the same rate this year for the same level of coverage. I don't know how to fix ObamaCare in a way that is fiscally responsible and meets the middle-class needs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... The president may personally propose legislation in annual and special messages to Congress including the annual State of the Union address and joint sessions of Congress. If Congress has adjourned without acting on proposals, the president may call a special session of the Congress.
Note that the President can ask Congress / the Senate, but the President can't create laws on his or her own.
Why doesn't he just fix the bits he doesn't like and re-name it.
Go take Civics 101 for what powers the POTUS has and does not have.
There was no way to verify that other countries kept their vague promises.
It's pretty easy actually. NASA's Earth science satellites can measure pollutants in the atmosphere. People on the ground can take independent measurements. It's impossible to hide pollution on the scale that it is being emitted, and we know how much each country is emitting with a very high degree of certainty.
OK, then replace my phrase with the equally discouraging one that's there's no enforcement in the treaty.
Then why hasn't Obamacare been repealed yet?
The President can't single-handedly repeal ObamaCare. Since it's a budget act, Congress must pass a bill which the Senate approves and hands to the President to ratify.
Itâ(TM)s not symmetric. The obligations of the US are very different than those of Syria or any other country. Insulting individuals who take issue with that is just cruel marketing.
The United States was the only country to make concrete promises. There was no way to verify that other countries kept their vague promises. The US should reduce its pollution, but never enter into such a lop-sided "agreement".
When do we ban cars? The shit coming out of their tailpipes is many times worse than whats coming out of traditional cigarettes, let alone the harmless vapor from an ecig.
There are emission tests for cars. If a car doesn't pass the emission test, it's registration gets revoked. Every decade the emission regulations get more stringent. Many cities have laws against idling your car except in cases of extreme temperature.
So now that they have deemed vapor a harmful pollutant. Are we going to ban restaurants who bring out a nice piping hot plate of food releasing its steam vapor? After all someone might be allergic to something in that steam. Or offended by the smell of cooked pork.
With the number of rich jews in new york I am surprised they haven't banned the sale of "unclean meat" in restaurants. After all you don't want to be limited to what restaurants you can go to, or worry that there was an "unclean piece of meat" in that frying pan just before your fish went into it.
Risk of offending someone is not a high enough cause to ban something. If a restaurant marks a dish as kosher or halal then the restaurant needs to take all necessary precautions to meet those requirements. As to allergies, I've entered into restaurants which have a sign warning about possible peanut dust in the air so people can choose whether to enter. Many of our snacks have warnings that although this snack should not normally contain nuts, it was made on the same equipment which processes nuts.
Can you sell alcohol indiscriminately in this theoretical bar...? Can you decide to sell it to 15 year olds?
A business owner should have the right to determine which (otherwise legal) activities to curtail on their property. A restaurant owner may choose to ban alcohol even though alcohol is legal to those 21 or older. However, that same restaurant owner cannot sell alcohol to minors because of the laws in place. It is legal to wear hats and sunglasses, but banks ban their use.