Embarrassed by church members

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
Post Reply
Juliette
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2699

Re: Embarrassed by church members

Post by Juliette »

AussieOi wrote:
Juliette wrote:
Aussie, thank you for the compliment. Most of the men on this forum are like you.
trust me. im one of a kind


They spar with me but are also respectful.( maybe they feel sorry for me! :))
i dont spar. you win. i concede every time


One of my favorite friends lives in Brisbane. He is blunt,
he is australian

but also humble.
he is polynesian


Your reply was just great!
I am more than willing to admit that I go with my heart, and not so much with intellect. I do know this however. This is the Lord's church. If men or women had to be perfect, to hold a leadership position, there would be no leaders. . I admire my leaders, the GA"s and our Prophet. I don't question them. I don't need to.
i dont believe we need to but i believe we are told to, and should

I am not a follower. I am very fiesty ( I'm sure you are laughing at that statement! haha). But I can honestly tell you, I have never, never, had anything but positive feelings about this church. Everything makes perfect sense to me. I have held several leadership positions. It only increased my testimony. Yes, there are people who frustrate me, but the Gospel is true!
all of which is correct sis
mind you, like Awake tries to get across, the perfection of the gospel has nothing to do with the imperfection of the people who are part of it (and being perfected in it) and vice versa


I am not voting for Mitt Romney because he is LDS. I am voting for him because I think he is a great alternative to what we've got.
can't argue with that
Yes, Ron Paul would have been a good President, but like it or not, he is not accepted or electable. I just hope he has the sense to not dilute the vote.
sigh. is that an LDS warrior talking?
how many analogies can i throw in?
when were you nuetered?, better to die on you rfeet than live on your knees, all it takes for evil to triumph is good people do nothing
im sorry, i think that is an attitude you will look past one day and see the error in it as a way of thinking
have you thought maybe Romney is the one diluting the vote?
Abinadi was unelectable. im not equating ron p with abinadi, just saying good never is popular
wont it worry you to see mitt being popular?



Gingrich is icky. Santorum just wasn't what I wanted. I wanted Mitt in the last election. If we had a candidate besides John McCain, we might not have gotton stuck with Obama. I want him OUT. I pray Mitt can do it!

lol sis. wake up. you know, its not who votes that counts...you know...


You don't like America or most Americans? I love America. My Grandfather, Father and husband have all fought so we can have freedom.
maybe your grandfather. maybe
the rest sorry, no. they were pawns of gadiantons preserving and perpetuating empire


You are controlled and cannot even have a gun. Nope, not here! It is still a great nation!
i could only wish to have a the rights enshrined in your constitution and bill of rights.
if i had one like that, id never let them water it down and trample on it like they do


How can we support the candidate, who in your opinion reflects lds values, when we know he can't win?

well with that attitude held by LDS as a start, no, they never will
but what, you think we can beat the gadiantons too?
har. no. we can't. but our test is to do the right, armour up and go out on the field, ready for battle
maybe if enough people stop blindly supporting the status quo with attitudes like yours...?
im so sad to read that. its like you gave in to the lesser of two evils. obama or romney
you need to be braver juliet, be a leader, not a defeatist.
its not about who wins, its about what people we become through this
its not who wins the battle, its if we will turn up
THATS what sorts the sheep from the goats in this battle
the church leaders will never tell us to stand behind them and fall in. it doesnt work that way
we've been told in the scriptures what to do
its not up to us
that GAs and leaders don't, won't, or can't, is irrelevant
this is our OWN battles.
too many LDS think they need to be commanded.
on the contrary, they need to lead
these are the people god wants as his leaders in his kingdom
which are you going to be juliet?



I value my vote. I am going to place it where I think it can do the most good. Simple as that..
braveheart film. william wallace is out on the field waiting for the flank attack as planned and then his "ally" lines up with the enemy.
mitt, barrack, ron. at the end of the day it wont make a dimes difference cos the USA is going to hell in a handbasket- as they say
but you are voting Darth ahead of Luke, saying the emporer is so bad, but luke wont beat him, so Darth is more likely to be not as bad, so you are throwing your hat in with him.
hows that for an example eh! pretty poor, but as an LDS, come on, you can do better
we need warriors out there juliette. not followers taking the easiest course



I am sorry you left the church. :( My friend in Brisbane has declared that he no longer believes in organized religion. We met him while he was serving a mission in Arizona.
re-read juliette. i teach gospel essentials and LOVE it. i havent left the church, i found Christ. one day you might understand what i mean.
the church is not the gospel. it will not save me. it is just a noun.
i enjoyed bishopric and high council and all that, done very other calling, love this the most.


I could not leave the sweetness this gospel brings into my life.
you don't have to.
what i am saying is that peace and salvation is not found in a building, or in a program, or in a talk. it is found in christ - as you agree i see


Once again, I appreciate your response. :ymhug:
i must be in a mellow mood or something. thats about an annual dose of nice from me. Lyra the Harp must be near Vega. or something like that
peace out
I'm sure glad you didn't leave the church. I can stop praying for you now! ( Sorry I misunderstood)

I understand what you are saying about Christ. For years I felt like I was just going through the motions. When President Hinckley asked us to read the Book of Mormon, and gave us a time frame, I studied dilligently. I felt like it was the first time I read it. I came to a realization that I'm not here to please everyone. I served a YW President for years. When that was over, It was nice to be in charge of just myself. I also came to know Christ and His teachings. You can't " Always Remember Him" If you don't know Him.

I also don't mind the scolding you gave me. You do it in a way that says you like me. I know you can be rough. Thank-you for keeping with your beliefs and not trashing me. I am happy to listen.

Of course, I don't think I am wrong. I think I AM a warrior fighting the good fight. Just because I don't agree, doesn't mean I'm wrong.
You do make very good points however. Your intellect is superior to mine. I always read your posts.

Thanks for the reply! :D

Juliette
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2699

Re: Embarrassed by church members

Post by Juliette »

ChelC wrote:Juliette! What is this power you possess? You have made OI out of his mind ticked off while at the same time anesthetizing Aussie.

:-o

Oh, Aussie. We knew you'd love Americans one day! :ymparty:

[takes cover]
=)) I am laughing at your remarks concerning Aussie. I feel bad about OI.
Last edited by Juliette on April 18th, 2012, 5:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
InfoWarrior82
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10861
Location: "There are 15 on the earth today, you can trust them completely." -President Nelson (Jan 2022)

Re: Embarrassed by church members

Post by InfoWarrior82 »

Andrew Jackson wrote:
Well what I got out of it was that the Constitution specified only Congress could coin or create money. The States were specifically prevented from creating money. The States could only trade gold or silver coins. There isn't anything there specifying that Congress has to use gold or silver which is what Ron Paul is advocating. It also specifies that Congress has the power to coin and the States are prohibited.

James Madison explained it this way in Federalist 44:
The extension of the prohibition to bills of credit must give pleasure to every citizen, in proportion to his love of justice and his knowledge of the true springs of public prosperity. The loss which America has sustained since the peace, from the pestilent effects of paper money on the necessary confidence between man and man, on the necessary confidence in the public councils, on the industry and morals of the people, and on the character of republican government, constitutes an enormous debt against the States chargeable with this unadvised measure, which must long remain unsatisfied; or rather an accumulation of guilt, which can be expiated no otherwise than by a voluntary sacrifice on the altar of justice, of the power which has been the instrument of it. In addition to these persuasive considerations, it may be observed, that the same reasons which show the necessity of denying to the States the power of regulating coin, prove with equal force that they ought not to be at liberty to substitute a paper medium in the place of coin. Had every State a right to regulate the value of its coin, there might be as many different currencies as States, and thus the intercourse among them would be impeded; retrospective alterations in its value might be made, and thus the citizens of other States be injured, and animosities be kindled among the States themselves. The subjects of foreign powers might suffer from the same cause, and hence the Union be discredited and embroiled by the indiscretion of a single member. No one of these mischiefs is less incident to a power in the States to emit paper money, than to coin gold or silver.
http://constitution.org/fed/federa44.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Under the Constitution the states may not "make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts." There is no such restriction on the federal government. There is no requirement in the Constitution that the coin that Congress is authorized to issue be composed of silver or gold, or even that it be backed by silver or gold. A reading of Federalist 44 may be convincing that James Madison would be opposed to a fiat currency, but that opposition didn’t make its way into the Constitution.

Pertinent part of White Feather's post included below.
White Feather wrote:Article 1, Section 10 (Powers Prohibited of States):
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec10.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I've added emphasis on both the gold and silver as well as "coin money". Ron Paul might be able to make a stand except we have more clarification and the authorization for that express authority in Article 1, Section 8 (Powers of Congress):
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The reason states do not have the power to create their own legal tender (other than gold or silver coin) is because that is a power expressly reserved to the Federal government - specifically the representatives of the people in Congress.

One of the primary problems of the Articles of Confederation (which Tom Woods listed above wants to take us back to) is that every state had its own currency, which hindered trade and created economic chaos. The founders revised this in the Constitution by reserving the right to Congress to establish a single currency for the whole nation - which facilitates trade and prosperity (accumulation of happiness/property).

The states are absolutely and completely prohibited by these sections of the Constitution from generating their own currency except for literal gold and silver coins. The founders knew the power of the money creation mechanism and reserved it strictly for representatives of the people. Also by central government directive.

Even if you ignore Article 1, Section 10 which restricts the powers of the States, it would not stand for what Ron Paul wants it to stand for, which is that the Federal government must constitutionally adhere to a gold/silver standard.
Here's Tom Wood's rationalization on it -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40MBdt1BQgE" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So where do competing currencies come into this?

Ron Paul states -
We, the Congress, have the power to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, but not to declare a legal tender," explained Rep. Ron Paul in his in remarks introducing the Free Competition in Currency Act of 2011. "Yet, there is a section of U.S. Code, 31 U.S.C. 5103, that purports to establish U.S. coins and currency, including Federal Reserve notes, as legal tender."
http://www.coinnews.net/2011/03/24/ron- ... t-of-2011/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If Congress can't declare "legal tender" then what is the purpose of coining money?
Legal tender is a medium of payment allowed by law or recognized by a legal system to be valid for meeting a financial obligation.
The Constitution states -
No State shall ...make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts
But that is only for the States. Congress has no such restriction. Again if you look at James Madison's statement in #44 about competing currencies from the states being disruptive to the economic well being of the nation then it makes perfect sense to have one legal tender which is why Congress would be the only authorized entity to "coin" money as well as protect that money from counterfeiting.
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States
One private enterprise which attempted to popularize the use of precious metal coins was Liberty Services, the creators of the Liberty Dollar," stated Ron Paul. "Evidently the government felt threatened, as Liberty Dollars had all their precious metal coins seized by the FBI and Secret Service in November of 2007. Of course, not all of these coins were owned by Liberty Services, as many were held in trust as backing for silver and gold certificates which Liberty Services issued. None of this matters, of course, to the government, who hates to see any competition.
http://www.coinnews.net/2011/03/24/ron- ... t-of-2011/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Isn't that by design as Madison pointed out?

The reason states do not have the power to create their own legal tender (other than gold or silver coin) is because that is a power expressly reserved to the Federal government. Remember that this was one of the central evils of the Articles of Confederation – that every state had its own currency, which hindered trade and created economic chaos – and so the founders reserved to the Federal government the right to establish a single currency for the whole nation.

The term "legal tender" wasn't even in use then.
Legal Tender Guidelines

Legal tender has a very narrow and technical meaning in the settlement of debts. It means that a debtor cannot successfully be sued for non-payment if he pays into court in legal tender. It does not mean that any ordinary transaction has to take place in legal tender or only within the amount denominated by the legislation. Both parties are free to agree to accept any form of payment whether legal tender or otherwise according to their wishes. In order to comply with the very strict rules governing an actual legal tender it is necessary, for example, actually to offer the exact amount due because no change can be demanded.
http://www.royalmint.com/aboutus/polici ... guidelines" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
When the United States was established, the U.S. Constitution outlined the basic framework through which government – both state and federal – could act on behalf of America’s citizens. Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution was legal tender mentioned, and this is a bone of contention still amongst those who see the Federal Reserve as an illegitimate institution.
http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2009/09 ... ssion.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

They also conveniently leave out the last sentence of Article 1 Section 8 -
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
First, the purpose of legal tender is to centralise the creation of money by creating monopoly control of the money printing press. This might be done to reduce the chaos associated with allowing anyone to issue bank notes. But it also might be done to inflate and increase leverage for taxation purposes. There are competing ideas on this issue but it boils down to a centralisation versus de-centralisation/States’ Rights versus Federalist argument.
http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2009/09 ... ssion.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This goes to the heart of the libertarian argument as they portray Lincoln as this evil dictator rather than the reality that he was fighting the banks to keep the nation free of banker control and from being divided. Of which church leaders have spoken fondly of him over the years for doing so.
So Abraham Lincoln created the Legal Tender Act for the United States.

However, in 1870, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled these laws unconstitutional in a 4-3 decision in the case Hepburn v. Griswold. What was peculiar about the ruling was that Salmon P. Chase was the chief justice presiding and voted against the greenback as legal tender. He was also Treasury Secretary at the time the legal tender law was enacted. He also happens to appear on the face of the 10,000 dollar bill, a denomination not in circulation today.
http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2009/09 ... ssion.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The prospect of American citizens turning away from the dollar towards alternate currencies will provide the necessary impetus to the U.S. government to regain control of the dollar and halt its downward spiral," Rep. Ron Paul said in his final remarks while introducing the bill.
http://www.coinnews.net/2011/03/24/ron- ... t-of-2011/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

How does competing currencies do anything other than destroy the unity of the nation's economic system similar to the chaos that occurred under The Articles of Confederation?

I still don't see where Ron Paul is suggesting we do anything unconstitutional.

I don't believe competing currencies destroy the unity of the nation's economic system. I agree with Ron Paul that it will "provide the necessary impetus to the U.S. government to regain control of the dollar and halt its downward spiral.

User avatar
InfoWarrior82
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10861
Location: "There are 15 on the earth today, you can trust them completely." -President Nelson (Jan 2022)

Re: Embarrassed by church members

Post by InfoWarrior82 »

shadow wrote:
AGStacker wrote:"Yes, the Constitution allows for some sinful behavior, but once a group of sinners get together and demand their so called "rights", amen to the Constitution."

In your example, you were the first one to demand your "rights" through legal means. In this example you violated the smokers right to smoke in his backyard. The Constitution doesn't guarantee a Utopia where no problems exist.

You are the same kind of person who probably staunchly supports all of the regulation in medicine. You don't recognize individual liability. If a man is on the side of the road selling miracle cures, are you stupid enough to believe him? Or do you petition government to "protect" you?! Hopefully you would be smart enough to recognize a fraud.

That man has the right to be a deceiver. A free market of intelligent people would eventually and quickly find the man to be a fraud and his efforts would be thwarted.

What you are advocating is the devil's plan. I will force, because all government is force mainly (this is why limited and small government is best), the people to choose "righteousness".
My point was that it takes a righteous people to be governed by the Constitution. I'm actually quite liberal as far as government laws are concerned, I don't like them! And trust me, calling the police is the last thing I'd do! But I recognize that government has had to step in to stop people from abusing others. It's gone down hill from there.

The only logical conclusion we can come to is that our constitution will be destroyed by a wicked people who don't value liberty and the principles held within. Can you provide me a step by step scenario where pot smokers and other moral degenerates will cause the constitution to disappear? I can. Moral wickedness leads to ignorance and apathy. When the majority of the people have become this way, then, and only then can the light of liberty and the constitution be snuffed out.

It is still possible for liberals and conservatives to live within the bounds of the constitution. They are called socially liberal libertarians and socially conservative libertarians. (Both small government.) What we have today are the two big government parties operating outside the bounds of the constitution.

User avatar
Andrew Jackson
captain of 10
Posts: 20

Re: Embarrassed by church members

Post by Andrew Jackson »

InfoWarrior82 wrote:
Andrew Jackson wrote:James Madison explained it this way in Federalist 44:
The extension of the prohibition to bills of credit must give pleasure to every citizen, in proportion to his love of justice and his knowledge of the true springs of public prosperity. The loss which America has sustained since the peace, from the pestilent effects of paper money on the necessary confidence between man and man, on the necessary confidence in the public councils, on the industry and morals of the people, and on the character of republican government, constitutes an enormous debt against the States chargeable with this unadvised measure, which must long remain unsatisfied; or rather an accumulation of guilt, which can be expiated no otherwise than by a voluntary sacrifice on the altar of justice, of the power which has been the instrument of it. In addition to these persuasive considerations, it may be observed, that the same reasons which show the necessity of denying to the States the power of regulating coin, prove with equal force that they ought not to be at liberty to substitute a paper medium in the place of coin. Had every State a right to regulate the value of its coin, there might be as many different currencies as States, and thus the intercourse among them would be impeded; retrospective alterations in its value might be made, and thus the citizens of other States be injured, and animosities be kindled among the States themselves. The subjects of foreign powers might suffer from the same cause, and hence the Union be discredited and embroiled by the indiscretion of a single member. No one of these mischiefs is less incident to a power in the States to emit paper money, than to coin gold or silver.
http://constitution.org/fed/federa44.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Under the Constitution the states may not "make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts." There is no such restriction on the federal government. There is no requirement in the Constitution that the coin that Congress is authorized to issue be composed of silver or gold, or even that it be backed by silver or gold. A reading of Federalist 44 may be convincing that James Madison would be opposed to a fiat currency, but that opposition didn’t make its way into the Constitution.

Pertinent part of White Feather's post included below.

Article 1, Section 10 (Powers Prohibited of States):
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec10.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I've added emphasis on both the gold and silver as well as "coin money". Ron Paul might be able to make a stand except we have more clarification and the authorization for that express authority in Article 1, Section 8 (Powers of Congress):
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The reason states do not have the power to create their own legal tender (other than gold or silver coin) is because that is a power expressly reserved to the Federal government - specifically the representatives of the people in Congress.

One of the primary problems of the Articles of Confederation (which Tom Woods listed above wants to take us back to) is that every state had its own currency, which hindered trade and created economic chaos. The founders revised this in the Constitution by reserving the right to Congress to establish a single currency for the whole nation - which facilitates trade and prosperity (accumulation of happiness/property).

The states are absolutely and completely prohibited by these sections of the Constitution from generating their own currency except for literal gold and silver coins. The founders knew the power of the money creation mechanism and reserved it strictly for representatives of the people. Also by central government directive.

Even if you ignore Article 1, Section 10 which restricts the powers of the States, it would not stand for what Ron Paul wants it to stand for, which is that the Federal government must constitutionally adhere to a gold/silver standard.

...End of White Feather's comments...

So where do competing currencies come into this?

Ron Paul states -
We, the Congress, have the power to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, but not to declare a legal tender," explained Rep. Ron Paul in his in remarks introducing the Free Competition in Currency Act of 2011. "Yet, there is a section of U.S. Code, 31 U.S.C. 5103, that purports to establish U.S. coins and currency, including Federal Reserve notes, as legal tender."
http://www.coinnews.net/2011/03/24/ron- ... t-of-2011/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If Congress can't declare "legal tender" then what is the purpose of coining money?
Legal tender is a medium of payment allowed by law or recognized by a legal system to be valid for meeting a financial obligation.
The Constitution states -
No State shall ...make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts
But that is only for the States. Congress has no such restriction. Again if you look at James Madison's statement in #44 about competing currencies from the states being disruptive to the economic well being of the nation then it makes perfect sense to have one legal tender which is why Congress would be the only authorized entity to "coin" money as well as protect that money from counterfeiting.
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States
One private enterprise which attempted to popularize the use of precious metal coins was Liberty Services, the creators of the Liberty Dollar," stated Ron Paul. "Evidently the government felt threatened, as Liberty Dollars had all their precious metal coins seized by the FBI and Secret Service in November of 2007. Of course, not all of these coins were owned by Liberty Services, as many were held in trust as backing for silver and gold certificates which Liberty Services issued. None of this matters, of course, to the government, who hates to see any competition.
http://www.coinnews.net/2011/03/24/ron- ... t-of-2011/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Isn't that by design as Madison pointed out?

The reason states do not have the power to create their own legal tender (other than gold or silver coin) is because that is a power expressly reserved to the Federal government. Remember that this was one of the central evils of the Articles of Confederation – that every state had its own currency, which hindered trade and created economic chaos – and so the founders reserved to the Federal government the right to establish a single currency for the whole nation.

The term "legal tender" wasn't even in use then.
Legal Tender Guidelines

Legal tender has a very narrow and technical meaning in the settlement of debts. It means that a debtor cannot successfully be sued for non-payment if he pays into court in legal tender. It does not mean that any ordinary transaction has to take place in legal tender or only within the amount denominated by the legislation. Both parties are free to agree to accept any form of payment whether legal tender or otherwise according to their wishes. In order to comply with the very strict rules governing an actual legal tender it is necessary, for example, actually to offer the exact amount due because no change can be demanded.
http://www.royalmint.com/aboutus/polici ... guidelines" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
When the United States was established, the U.S. Constitution outlined the basic framework through which government – both state and federal – could act on behalf of America’s citizens. Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution was legal tender mentioned, and this is a bone of contention still amongst those who see the Federal Reserve as an illegitimate institution.
http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2009/09 ... ssion.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

They also conveniently leave out the last sentence of Article 1 Section 8 -
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
First, the purpose of legal tender is to centralise the creation of money by creating monopoly control of the money printing press. This might be done to reduce the chaos associated with allowing anyone to issue bank notes. But it also might be done to inflate and increase leverage for taxation purposes. There are competing ideas on this issue but it boils down to a centralisation versus de-centralisation/States’ Rights versus Federalist argument.
http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2009/09 ... ssion.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This goes to the heart of the libertarian argument as they portray Lincoln as this evil dictator rather than the reality that he was fighting the banks to keep the nation free of banker control and from being divided. Of which church leaders have spoken fondly of him over the years for doing so.
So Abraham Lincoln created the Legal Tender Act for the United States.

However, in 1870, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled these laws unconstitutional in a 4-3 decision in the case Hepburn v. Griswold. What was peculiar about the ruling was that Salmon P. Chase was the chief justice presiding and voted against the greenback as legal tender. He was also Treasury Secretary at the time the legal tender law was enacted. He also happens to appear on the face of the 10,000 dollar bill, a denomination not in circulation today.
http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2009/09 ... ssion.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The prospect of American citizens turning away from the dollar towards alternate currencies will provide the necessary impetus to the U.S. government to regain control of the dollar and halt its downward spiral," Rep. Ron Paul said in his final remarks while introducing the bill.
http://www.coinnews.net/2011/03/24/ron- ... t-of-2011/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

How does competing currencies do anything other than destroy the unity of the nation's economic system similar to the chaos that occurred under The Articles of Confederation?

I still don't see where Ron Paul is suggesting we do anything unconstitutional.

I don't believe competing currencies destroy the unity of the nation's economic system. I agree with Ron Paul that it will "provide the necessary impetus to the U.S. government to regain control of the dollar and halt its downward spiral.
Well I don't know how much more clear cut it could be. James Madison was pretty blunt about it. Maybe its one of those blinded by the craftiness of men. Or for the ears of them that hear.

User avatar
shadow
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10542
Location: St. George

Re: Embarrassed by church members

Post by shadow »

InfoWarrior82 wrote: Moral wickedness leads to ignorance and apathy. When the majority of the people have become this way, then, and only then can the light of liberty and the constitution be snuffed out.
I think it leads to pride and selfishness, more wickedness. This is why historically prophets are killed, not because the people are too apathetic and ignorant but because they don't like to be told about the wickedness they so enjoy and participate in. What would happen if Ron Paul told those call girls who support him that what they're doing is wrong and that they should stop? He'd be stoned to death (not literally) by the media, and possibly a few on this site. But he hasn't called them out yet because he probably thinks they have every right in the world to do as they please. You and I know they don't have that right! Too bad Ron Paul doesn't see it that way (ignorant??) and if he does he's certainly apathetic or maybe he's just in it for the money?

awar_e
captain of 100
Posts: 392

Re: Embarrassed by church members

Post by awar_e »

Perhaps some focus needs to be directed regarding the promise (threat?) which the Lord has made regarding our fate.
Ether 8:22

22 And whatsoever nation shall uphold such secret combinations, to get power and gain, until they shall spread over the nation, behold, they shall be destroyed; for the Lord will not suffer that the blood of his saints, which shall be shed by them, shall always cry unto him from the ground for vengeance upon them and yet he avenge them not.

Ether 11:15

15 And it came to pass that there arose a rebellion among the people, because of that secret combination which was built up to get power and gain; and there arose a mighty man among them in iniquity, and gave battle unto Moron, in which he did overthrow the half of the kingdom; and he did maintain the half of the kingdom for many years.



This is exactly where now are, since people have been looking for the next election to right things for over 100 years. Prophets have warned about this for many years until they have gradually halted the words of preparing and now we will see the truth of the Lord's words.


Ether 2:9

9 And now, we can behold the decrees of God concerning this land, that it is a land of promise; and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall serve God, or they shall be swept off when the fulness of his wrath shall come upon them. And the fulness of his wrath cometh upon them when they are ripened in iniquity.

awar_e
captain of 100
Posts: 392

Re: Embarrassed by church members

Post by awar_e »

Anyone see WRATH in the tornadoes and earthquakes the past few weeks?

User avatar
Jerry J Fletcher
captain of 100
Posts: 100
Location: Guyana

Re: Embarrassed by church members

Post by Jerry J Fletcher »

awar_e wrote:Anyone see WRATH in the tornadoes and earthquakes the past few weeks?
Pretty much a daily basis somewhere in the world.

User avatar
Eddie Lyle
captain of 100
Posts: 184
Location: N NV

Re: Embarrassed by church members

Post by Eddie Lyle »

I think Ron Paul understands morality and law just fine.

Juliette
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2699

Re: Embarrassed by church members

Post by Juliette »

shadow wrote:
Original_Intent wrote:I have for MANY years considered how fast a message could spread using the MLM model. Not to make money. Keep money out of it, let them get their own materials but just the idea of "spreading the word" exponentially. And to a large extent, I do believe that is what the Ron Paul Revolution is accomplishing, but it is still slow as it often takes months or years to take seomeone from apathetic to fully involved, educated, and ready to spread the word. or it can happen very quickly if someone suddenly wakes up and becomes very, very motivated.
That's probably a big part of the problem IMO, Ron Paul. Maybe The Constitution Revolution would be better suited as RP is just an imperfect man who many believe is compromised and doesn't fully understand the Constitution, her blessings and demands! Unfortunately RP has more supporters who want to be free to sin without any recourse than those who recognize the heavy requirements of having the Constitution.

The prelude to any Constitution Revolution would be that the Constitution will only work for a righteous people, and list reasons why. The pot smokers need to understand why they can't do what they do while living under the freedom of the Constitution. The politicians need to know this too so they can recognize when they themselves are off course. If a majority of the druggies, prostitutes and other evil lifestyle voters are supporting you because they want "freedom" to do as they please then there is a problem.
:ymapplause: :ymapplause:

User avatar
InfoWarrior82
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10861
Location: "There are 15 on the earth today, you can trust them completely." -President Nelson (Jan 2022)

Re: Embarrassed by church members

Post by InfoWarrior82 »

Eddie Lyle wrote:I think Ron Paul understands morality and law just fine.

:ymapplause:

User avatar
InfoWarrior82
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10861
Location: "There are 15 on the earth today, you can trust them completely." -President Nelson (Jan 2022)

Re: Embarrassed by church members

Post by InfoWarrior82 »

shadow wrote:
InfoWarrior82 wrote: Moral wickedness leads to ignorance and apathy. When the majority of the people have become this way, then, and only then can the light of liberty and the constitution be snuffed out.
I think it leads to pride and selfishness, more wickedness. This is why historically prophets are killed, not because the people are too apathetic and ignorant but because they don't like to be told about the wickedness they so enjoy and participate in. What would happen if Ron Paul told those call girls who support him that what they're doing is wrong and that they should stop? He'd be stoned to death (not literally) by the media, and possibly a few on this site. But he hasn't called them out yet because he probably thinks they have every right in the world to do as they please. You and I know they don't have that right! Too bad Ron Paul doesn't see it that way (ignorant??) and if he does he's certainly apathetic or maybe he's just in it for the money?

Ron Paul is very open about his personal beliefs on morality.... you do know what his personal beliefs on morality are? Right? It's pretty difficult to find this stuff in the mainstream media because it's BURIED. That's why we have all these people on the forum wrongly believing Ron Paul is just some immoral pot smoking hippie.

User avatar
Jerry J Fletcher
captain of 100
Posts: 100
Location: Guyana

Re: Embarrassed by church members

Post by Jerry J Fletcher »

InfoWarrior82 wrote:
shadow wrote:
InfoWarrior82 wrote: Moral wickedness leads to ignorance and apathy. When the majority of the people have become this way, then, and only then can the light of liberty and the constitution be snuffed out.
I think it leads to pride and selfishness, more wickedness. This is why historically prophets are killed, not because the people are too apathetic and ignorant but because they don't like to be told about the wickedness they so enjoy and participate in. What would happen if Ron Paul told those call girls who support him that what they're doing is wrong and that they should stop? He'd be stoned to death (not literally) by the media, and possibly a few on this site. But he hasn't called them out yet because he probably thinks they have every right in the world to do as they please. You and I know they don't have that right! Too bad Ron Paul doesn't see it that way (ignorant??) and if he does he's certainly apathetic or maybe he's just in it for the money?

Ron Paul is very open about his personal beliefs on morality.... you know what his personal beliefs on morality are... right? It's pretty difficult to find this stuff in the mainstream media because it's BURIED. That's why we have all these people on the forum wrongly believing Ron Paul is just some immoral pot smoking hippie.
I saw how he voted on gays in the military that not only is morally wrong but also destructive to the country. I've seen his flip flops on China. I've seen his monetary plans to undermine and destroy the country that the Father of the Constitution, James Madison has warned us about. I've seen his lies about his investment newsletters. I've seen his lies about 9/11.

He's a career lying politician just like all the rest of them in office. His moral stance is a figment of your imagination.

User avatar
InfoWarrior82
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10861
Location: "There are 15 on the earth today, you can trust them completely." -President Nelson (Jan 2022)

Re: Embarrassed by church members

Post by InfoWarrior82 »

Jerry J Fletcher wrote:
I saw how he voted on gays in the military that not only is morally wrong but also destructive to the country. I've seen his flip flops on China. I've seen his monetary plans to undermine and destroy the country that the Father of the Constitution, James Madison has warned us about. I've seen his lies about his investment newsletters. I've seen his lies about 9/11.

He's a career lying politician just like all the rest of them in office. His moral stance is a figment of your imagination.
A liar? Hmmm... nope. Ron Paul is perfect? No. Just leaps and bounds above any other candidate. I don't agree with Ron Paul on everything he does (specifically don't ask dont tell), but to have a man with a record like he does in this day and age is akin to a miracle.

User avatar
Jerry J Fletcher
captain of 100
Posts: 100
Location: Guyana

Re: Embarrassed by church members

Post by Jerry J Fletcher »

InfoWarrior82 wrote:
Jerry J Fletcher wrote:
I saw how he voted on gays in the military that not only is morally wrong but also destructive to the country. I've seen his flip flops on China. I've seen his monetary plans to undermine and destroy the country that the Father of the Constitution, James Madison has warned us about. I've seen his lies about his investment newsletters. I've seen his lies about 9/11.

He's a career lying politician just like all the rest of them in office. His moral stance is a figment of your imagination.
A liar? Hmmm... nope. Ron Paul is perfect? No. Just leaps and bounds above any other candidate. I don't agree with Ron Paul on everything he does (specifically don't ask dont tell), but to have a man with a record like he does in this day and age is akin to a miracle.
Everybody can believe whatever they want. One of the entitlements of agency. That said, there is one reality or truth.

I think the goal should be attempting to get at that truth - whatever it may be. Then we can make the best educated respective decisions.

On Ron Paul supporters, I see tons of statements of belief but generally a lack of supporting information. And when something is specifically antagonistic to their paradigms they completely ignore it. What's ironic is that some of those same individuals can bash the heck out of people who don't believe in 9/11 truth for similar behavior. Round after round with somebody like Bluemoon (whom for the record I don't agree with) calling him an ignoramus for not recognizing their tremendous amount of completely obvious evidence. Yet when evidence is provided on Ron Paul they behave similarly as Bluemoon with the same continual responses of his stellar record, completely Constitutional with no evidence provided whatsoever, etc etc etc. To each their own on it.

User avatar
Fairminded
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1956

Re: Embarrassed by church members

Post by Fairminded »

Jerry J Fletcher wrote:
InfoWarrior82 wrote:
Jerry J Fletcher wrote:
I saw how he voted on gays in the military that not only is morally wrong but also destructive to the country. I've seen his flip flops on China. I've seen his monetary plans to undermine and destroy the country that the Father of the Constitution, James Madison has warned us about. I've seen his lies about his investment newsletters. I've seen his lies about 9/11.

He's a career lying politician just like all the rest of them in office. His moral stance is a figment of your imagination.
A liar? Hmmm... nope. Ron Paul is perfect? No. Just leaps and bounds above any other candidate. I don't agree with Ron Paul on everything he does (specifically don't ask dont tell), but to have a man with a record like he does in this day and age is akin to a miracle.
Everybody can believe whatever they want. One of the entitlements of agency. That said, there is one reality or truth.

I think the goal should be attempting to get at that truth - whatever it may be. Then we can make the best educated respective decisions.

On Ron Paul supporters, I see tons of statements of belief but generally a lack of supporting information. And when something is specifically antagonistic to their paradigms they completely ignore it. What's ironic is that some of those same individuals can bash the heck out of people who don't believe in 9/11 truth for similar behavior. Round after round with somebody like Bluemoon (whom for the record I don't agree with) calling him an ignoramus for not recognizing their tremendous amount of completely obvious evidence. Yet when evidence is provided on Ron Paul they behave similarly as Bluemoon with the same continual responses of his stellar record, completely Constitutional with no evidence provided whatsoever, etc etc etc. To each their own on it.
I see far more evidence supporting Ron Paul's position than I see evidence supporting a candidate like, say, Romney. Hundreds of youtube videos, clips, quotes, and other media, all showing Ron Paul holding a similar position for decades. And when evidence against him is provided I usually at least look at it. And I've seen Ron Paul supporters willing to give ground on points and admit he isn't perfect, and good luck getting the same admission from some who support our priesthood holder candidate.

Is this about getting to the truth, or are you feeling a bit bitter about putting up loads of information bashing Paul on a different user name you've carefully cultivated and garnered quite a bit of respect on, but for some reason it wasn't immediately swallowed and praised? And if this is about getting the truth, how does that square with hiding behind multiple user names, J?

liberty_belle
captain of 100
Posts: 556

Re: Embarrassed by church members

Post by liberty_belle »

:|
Last edited by liberty_belle on May 25th, 2012, 5:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

awar_e
captain of 100
Posts: 392

Re: Embarrassed by church members

Post by awar_e »

liberty_belle wrote:
Juliette wrote:
shadow wrote: That's probably a big part of the problem IMO, Ron Paul. Maybe The Constitution Revolution would be better suited as RP is just an imperfect man who many believe is compromised and doesn't fully understand the Constitution, her blessings and demands! Unfortunately RP has more supporters who want to be free to sin without any recourse than those who recognize the heavy requirements of having the Constitution.

The prelude to any Constitution Revolution would be that the Constitution will only work for a righteous people, and list reasons why. The pot smokers need to understand why they can't do what they do while living under the freedom of the Constitution. The politicians need to know this too so they can recognize when they themselves are off course. If a majority of the druggies, prostitutes and other evil lifestyle voters are supporting you because they want "freedom" to do as they please then there is a problem.
:ymapplause: :ymapplause:
Okay, I am going to ruffle some feathers here, not intentionally but just because I have been in this arena way tooooooo long not to know that this hits people where it hurts.....so with that said, I am sorry.....however, I cannot be silent any longer on this issue.

I want to know how many of you have the courage to raise your hand and admit that you are on a prescription drug for depression, anxiety, bi-polar, etc etc etc????? My guess very few will admit and those who do will come out swinging. Why? Because they do not want to admit or hear that their drug of choice, however legal, is every bit as addictive and damaging as illegal drugs are. The only difference is that one is sold in a pure form from a pharmacy and its controlled. POT, my friends, is a cakewalk compared to your Ritalin, Prozac, Zoloft, Effexor, Cymbalta, Depakote, Paxil and the like! You know what I am talking about, just try to come off those things cold turkey and see where it gets you. Do you want to know why, because they work on the same receptor sites and hormones (ie Serotonin, Norepinephrin. etc) as the illegal drugs do. Where do you think the drug companies got the brilliant ideas?

I have seen and heard of enough crime, suicide, murder and everything in between to last me 10 life-times because of these medications (that is the nice word for "drug"). I am so tired of the LDS word of wisdom "followers" yelling about illegl drugs, yet they pop their "drug of choice" just so they can "function." What's better is that they can go into their temple recommend interviews and say they follow the word of wisdom because its legal and the church supports it.

So, my one and only rant is going to be for all of you who think the world is going to end because we make pot legal to sell and purchase..... Enough already with the hypocrisy. [-(

Your post is so on target and has been my concern for decades. About 10 years ago, I asked a pharmacist what the number one prescription drug was in Utah, since I had heard rumors about the situation for some time. PROZAC was the answer with no hesitation on his part. Many new drugs are now on the scene so the answer might be a bit different now, but the overall addiction is much worse now. Addictions came in many forms these days and few even recognize their plight. Many traffic accidents raise the question about illegal drug involvement, but all is considered well if it was a prescription. For some years now, we have had a war for drugs, while being told we have a war on drugs.
We are assailed with stats of fear regarding weight, blood pressure, cholesterol and any number of "modern" concerns which sell us on a reliance of the lies of men to trade a mess of pottage for an addiction.
I laugh inwardly when I see folks proclaiming that they will flee to the hills or walk to MO or any number of feats of folly which they have no physical stamina to even attempt.
As I recall the physical appearance of the men of the 1940' and 50's an over weight person was a rarity and I can not even recall when I first heard the word obese.

Many OTHER addictions have hold of the minds and bodies which is regularly the subject of conference talks etc.

Nan
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2001
Location: texas

Re: Embarrassed by church members

Post by Nan »

I would submit that the reason depression meds are higher in Utah is because less mormons self medicate using alcohol or illegal drugs than the rest of society.

awar_e
captain of 100
Posts: 392

Re: Embarrassed by church members

Post by awar_e »

The state's legislature and governor have been changing that as fast as they can as they remove more restrictions each year on alcohol sales.
This is far from the sober society it once was when I arrived in 1968.
It actually represents the disregard for prophets in all areas as we remain correctly under condemnation.

User avatar
Original_Intent
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 13008

Re: Embarrassed by church members

Post by Original_Intent »

liberty_belle wrote:
Juliette wrote:
shadow wrote: That's probably a big part of the problem IMO, Ron Paul. Maybe The Constitution Revolution would be better suited as RP is just an imperfect man who many believe is compromised and doesn't fully understand the Constitution, her blessings and demands! Unfortunately RP has more supporters who want to be free to sin without any recourse than those who recognize the heavy requirements of having the Constitution.

The prelude to any Constitution Revolution would be that the Constitution will only work for a righteous people, and list reasons why. The pot smokers need to understand why they can't do what they do while living under the freedom of the Constitution. The politicians need to know this too so they can recognize when they themselves are off course. If a majority of the druggies, prostitutes and other evil lifestyle voters are supporting you because they want "freedom" to do as they please then there is a problem.
:ymapplause: :ymapplause:
Okay, I am going to ruffle some feathers here, not intentionally but just because I have been in this arena way tooooooo long not to know that this hits people where it hurts.....so with that said, I am sorry.....however, I cannot be silent any longer on this issue.

I want to know how many of you have the courage to raise your hand and admit that you are on a prescription drug for depression, anxiety, bi-polar, etc etc etc????? My guess very few will admit and those who do will come out swinging. Why? Because they do not want to admit or hear that their drug of choice, however legal, is every bit as addictive and damaging as illegal drugs are. The only difference is that one is sold in a pure form from a pharmacy and its controlled. POT, my friends, is a cakewalk compared to your Ritalin, Prozac, Zoloft, Effexor, Cymbalta, Depakote, Paxil and the like! You know what I am talking about, just try to come off those things cold turkey and see where it gets you. Do you want to know why, because they work on the same receptor sites and hormones (ie Serotonin, Norepinephrin. etc) as the illegal drugs do. Where do you think the drug companies got the brilliant ideas?

I have seen and heard of enough crime, suicide, murder and everything in between to last me 10 life-times because of these medications (that is the nice word for "drug"). I am so tired of the LDS word of wisdom "followers" yelling about illegl drugs, yet they pop their "drug of choice" just so they can "function." What's better is that they can go into their temple recommend interviews and say they follow the word of wisdom because its legal and the church supports it.

So, my one and only rant is going to be for all of you who think the world is going to end because we make pot legal to sell and purchase..... Enough already with the hypocrisy. [-(
Bingo. And why do we allow the FDA the right to even regulate? They pass or fail based on what is good for the drug industry, not what is good for the consumer. Dr. Jones has shown plenty of evidence of that in the "Dr. Mercola" thread alone. It's ridiculous.

I've never ever used an illegal drug, and I ahve never abused a prescription. So I don't want my next statement to be misconstrued.

I have read from what I believe are credible sources, that two of the most beneficial herb plants in existence are marijuana and dandelions. Both will grow just about anywhere (guess that's why they call MJ "Weed") and yet one we have been conditioned since childhood is a gateway drug to hard drugs and is also called the devil's weed, while the other we do our darndest to eradicate as a "pest" plant. I'm no herbalist, but I have read that dandelions have several uses and virtually every part of the plant is useful as an herbal remedy.

My personal feeling is that most of our attitudes are based on a lifetime exposure to propaganda. I hate to even defend marijuana, because I know what kind of person that makes people automatically think that I am - and I know this because not that many years ago I know what kind of person it would have made ME think of! @-)

Another interesting little anecdote. A few years ago, I worked at Feature Films for Families. They essentially telemarket clean family friendly videos. Run and managed by some very nice, upright, conservative people and of course most of the employees were similar.

Well, just before I left the company, I found out that one of the employees was the son of a pharmacist, and he had quite a little drug trade going on right there at work supplying people with Loritab, Percaset (sp?) etc. and probably better than half of the employees and 100% of the management were customers.

These were folks obviously with no prescriptions, and yet none of them thought they were doing anything "that bad: - I mean yeah they knew it was against the law, but really the attitude was it was like breaking the speed limit, no big deal. And those fine folks never would have put them selves on the level of a Dirty Pot Smoker.

W @-) W.

I was on a prescribed drug for depression for about a month. I stopped as I felt that it was not the right thing, I felt like I was no longer myself, and I believed it was better to be me and depressed than not me even if it "felt better". I am not saying no one should be on anti depressants, but it wasn't for me.

Worst drug experience I had was withdrawing from triple codeine when I had pneumonia about 25 years ago. I was hallucinating some scary stuff. If it had even dawned on me that I was having drug withdrawals, I probably would have done about anything. (I actually still had some of the medication, but did not connect that I was having withdrawals).

I certainly am not advocating recreational drug use in any way. But I do believe that many substances are controlled that would be very helpful to sick people, and they are controlled simply because it would be too easy to produce and would take too much business from big pharma.

User avatar
ChelC
The Law
Posts: 5982
Location: Utah

Re: Embarrassed by church members

Post by ChelC »

liberty_belle wrote:
Okay, I am going to ruffle some feathers here, not intentionally but just because I have been in this arena way tooooooo long not to know that this hits people where it hurts.....so with that said, I am sorry.....however, I cannot be silent any longer on this issue.

I want to know how many of you have the courage to raise your hand and admit that you are on a prescription drug for depression, anxiety, bi-polar, etc etc etc????? My guess very few will admit and those who do will come out swinging. Why? Because they do not want to admit or hear that their drug of choice, however legal, is every bit as addictive and damaging as illegal drugs are. The only difference is that one is sold in a pure form from a pharmacy and its controlled. POT, my friends, is a cakewalk compared to your Ritalin, Prozac, Zoloft, Effexor, Cymbalta, Depakote, Paxil and the like! You know what I am talking about, just try to come off those things cold turkey and see where it gets you. Do you want to know why, because they work on the same receptor sites and hormones (ie Serotonin, Norepinephrin. etc) as the illegal drugs do. Where do you think the drug companies got the brilliant ideas?

I have seen and heard of enough crime, suicide, murder and everything in between to last me 10 life-times because of these medications (that is the nice word for "drug"). I am so tired of the LDS word of wisdom "followers" yelling about illegl drugs, yet they pop their "drug of choice" just so they can "function." What's better is that they can go into their temple recommend interviews and say they follow the word of wisdom because its legal and the church supports it.

So, my one and only rant is going to be for all of you who think the world is going to end because we make pot legal to sell and purchase..... Enough already with the hypocrisy. [-(
Are you a proponent of legalizing drugs? Are you using the argument that those who don't are all doped up on prescriptions?

User avatar
ChelC
The Law
Posts: 5982
Location: Utah

Re: Embarrassed by church members

Post by ChelC »

OI - Did you know Cecilia at Feature Films? I used to be your copier repair person there. I hated that machine, it was one of my lemons.

Thomas
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4622

Re: Embarrassed by church members

Post by Thomas »

.
Original_Intent wrote:
Well, just before I left the company, I found out that one of the employees was the son of a pharmacist, and he had quite a little drug trade going on right there at work supplying people with Loritab, Percaset (sp?) etc. and probably better than half of the employees and 100% of the management were customers.

These were folks obviously with no prescriptions, and yet none of them thought they were doing anything "that bad: - I mean yeah they knew it was against the law, but really the attitude was it was like breaking the speed limit, no big deal. And those fine folks never would have put them selves on the level of a Dirty Pot Smoker
This is a gateway drug and behavior that leads to herion addiction. Those who can't control their addiction and lose their source for prescription medication often turn to herion as substitute for Loritab, Percocet, and other narcotic based drugs. I have been personally involved with people who have done this.

Post Reply