Democrats & Liberals Archives

Oh Brother!
Let’s see… phonetically the new Myth Romney pronounciation of America is Ah-Mercy-aah! Seem that the GOP has unwittingly revealed what the 99% Percent are certain to be shouting if they win!

Big F’ing deal. Romney didn’t wirte the sign but obama did talk about 57 states.

Ahmercy is right! This man may have a way with $$$, but he doesn’t have a lick of sense !
Guess this kind of proves he was too busy in school with pranks to pay attention to speleng and litercher and noncents like that……… pretty pitiful!

So you guys think Romney actually wrote the app?

Better send him to one of those Polish death camps then.

Royal Flush-
What, did I touch a sore spot here? Romney probably spells perfectly well. He just needs to hire folks with sharper eyes, that’s all.

No sore spots on me SD. Just responding in kind. Iam reminded of obama’s outrage at a 9 trillion debt when he was running the first time. Now…at 15 trillion he says we must do even more deficit spending.

obama is going to lose for very simple reasons. He is unfit for the office as his first term is showing. He no longer enjoys the “aw shucks, hope and change” novelty he rode to victory over McCain who was a terrible candiate.

So funny — there’s already a tumblr account! http://amerciaiswithmitt.tumblr.com/

“Polish Death Camps” is how obama chose to describe the Nazi death camps located in Poland. He managed to anger Polish officials and many Poles living in this country.

The misspelled word…America…that libs are having such fun with angered no one that I know of, but then, they must latch onto anything they can find to divert attention from the obama disaster.

The gaffe about the Polish death camps is a much bigger problem. The fact that the Obama folks only expressed “regret” makes it even worse.

So let’s make the comparison. We have a typo on a video made by somebody on a campaign staff versus a hateful slur that anybody familiar with WWII history would know was wrong.

We were told Obama was smarter than that. I know he doesn’t write any of the things he reads on those teleprompters, but a truly educated man who understood a little about the Holocaust would have caught that gaffe.

I bet that George Bush would have known better.

The more I think about this death camp fiasco, the more serious it sounds, both because of the ignorance and maybe politics.

Perhaps the Obama folks don’t really care if they show ignorance of history and insult one of our most consistent allies, but Poles are not an inconsequential voting block. They are “traditional” Democrats who have become a little disillusioned with Democrats. While not as numerous as Hispanics and not as united as recent immigrants, Polish Americans are concentrated in a few places, including Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin. Notice the “battleground” states.

If the margin of victory in a place like Wisconsin, Ohio or Pennsylvania is a few hundred thousands, this “Gafa Obamy” could end up tipping the race. What rich irony that would be. He thought he could insult Poles with impunity.

Poland is one of our strongest allies and is doing very well economically. You are correct C&J, even if he was reading it he should have been quick and smart enough to spot the obvious error and avoid the turmoil.

Yes, what’s Amercia(sic) coming to anyway?
How dare Obama misspeak about a concentration camp that was located in Poland while awarding the Medal of Freedom to Jan Karski, a resistance fighter against the Nazi occupation of Poland.

What complete bullshit. I know German culture well, used to be fluent in many German dialects and Medieval German, and I’m well versed in WWII history. I’ve taught World History, and taught it well. But ‘Polish death camps’? I would never have noticed anything wrong with that phrase. I’m not even sure there is anything wrong, since collaboration was common among many peoples conquered by the Third Reich, even people as brutally repressed and slaughtered on the whole as the Poles.

In addition, I don’t think a Republican typo on a website qualifies as worth a moment of attention, so on this point, I agree with Royal Flush.

I’m mildly amused that 19,000 people have e-mailed the AZ government demanding Romney prove he is not a unicorn. Ok. More than mildly amused. That’s pretty funny. At some point, Romney will need to show some courage and reject the Birthers.

I’m very disappointed that Romney would provide Donald Trump so much attention, including a personal visit to Las Vegas. Trump is, as George Will put it, a “bloviating ignoramus.” Trump thrives on attention. I realize he is giving Romney $2 million, but at some point, Romney needs to distance himself from self-promoting buffoons like Trump, and money be damned. Trump went on CNN and engaged in a prolonged argument in favor of Birtherism. It discredits Romney, Republicans, and all conservatives for Romney to associate himself with conspiracy nuts.

I caught a few minutes of Limbaugh this morning, and he was incensed about the CNN interview. He thought it was unfair for Wolf Blitzer to ask Trump about Birtherism. Really? 52% of all Republicans in MS believe it. 46% of all Republicans believe it. The Birthers discredit all Republicans and conservatives, yet the GOP and Romney seem incapable of publicly renouncing such stupidity. The rest of the country is laughing at you, guys. Get serious. Show some courage. Stand up to the stupid.

C&J-
There you go, turning one Amercian against another.

Seriously, though, you’re really reaching if you’re trying to turn a minor diplomatic gaffe into a wedge issue. Is that how you think about things, who you can enrage next to deny the President support?

It’s no wonder the GOP’s at the point where it can barely function. It’s become a house of gossiping hens.

phx8 — check out the tumblr pages. I say when it’s that funny it’s definitely worth at least a moment of attention!

And two more Dems become Reps. All the while a dimocrat here and a dimocrat there are quiting.

It should be noted that the Polish fiasco is further amplified by the military defense system got disantled from Poland and Czechoslovakia. The Poles are probably asking “Are they really our friends”. And this administration cannot answer in the affirmative that we are. What a shame the Obama people continue to bring upon this nation.

Maranatha

Stephen

It is a big gaffe.

But I am mentioning Obama’s evident lack of education. He is supposed to be smart. Yet he just read that comment w/o it making an impression on him. I understand that an ignorant speech writer made the error, but a “smart guy” like Obama should have caught the mistake or does he just read whatever is put in front of him w/o ever thinking?

re turning Americans against each other, didn’t I just read a post by you about Hispanics being insulted? You wrote a whole post about that.

phx8

Maybe that is because you know German and not Polish. It is a consistent and long-standing objection by Poles. The camps were build by Nazis in occupied Poland. Poles were also exterminated in the camps.

It is something that the speech writer should have researched. The ceremony was honoring Jan Karski. He is the Pole who tried to warn the west about the Holocaust. This was the whole reason for the honor. It was not just a random event.

It shows real incompetence in the Obama team. And it is stupid on the part of supposedly intelligent Obama. Even if you know nothing about WWII or the Holocaust, which may be the case, wouldn’t simple logic tell you to suspect that a Polish hero had to sneak in and out of a Polish camp?

I met Jan Karski. He was a true hero, the kind we don’t see often.

Re collaboration - check that history before you teach it again. There was no Marshall Pétain in Poland, no Quisling.

Nazi ideology identified Poles as a sub-race to be exterminated in turn. To begin with, the destroyed the Polish intelligentsia, murdering professors, teachers and priests. It was a crime punishable by death to educate Polish children beyond a very basic level. Poles had underground schools. When the Nazis discovered them, they killed everyone, including the children.

I lived in Warsaw and Krakow. I ran and walked through the woods and streets. Everywhere you go, you find quiet memorials with something like “on this spot, the Nazis killed 50 civilians in punishment for…” Many of the buildings still had bullet holes in the foundations. I say foundations because they had to rebuild from there.

The Poles fought the Nazis and it took more Nazi divisions to conquer and occupy Poland than it did France. 3.5 million non-Jewish Poles were killed by the Nazis in addition to about the same number of Jewish Polish citizens. This represented more than 10% of the prewar population. The Nazi occupation of Poland was unusually brutal, even by Nazi standards. During and after the Warsaw uprising in 1944, the Nazis physically liquidated as many as 200,000 people in Warsaw and systematically destroyed the city, going block by block destroying building and any people they found there. Warsaw is a flat city. The only hills are former piles of rubble, now overgrown in grass.

Poles fought in the allied armies. By the end of the war, if you counted the Poles volunteering in allied armies, they would have made up the 4th largest army.

It is the kind of historical ignorance of these things that makes the use of the term “Polish” camps so insulting.

I can forgive Obama his ignorance, but the lame “correction” they made is unacceptable.

The Poles can hold their heads high in regards to their behavior during WWII, more so than most other peoples of the Continent. However, a sizable German minorty lived in Poland, in Danzig/Gdansk and Western Silesia. Their supposed repression was used as an pretext for the Nazi invasion. Perhaps the German speaking Poles shouldn’t be considered Polish. Perhaps Obama should not have used the term ‘Polish Death Camps.’ Any reference to French collaboration, which occurred on a much wider scale, would certainly be met with a lot of resentment by the French today… but that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Correcting this error out of respect for the Poles would be totally understandable, because they definitely deserve our respect. In terms of the effect on American politics, it’s no more significant than a Romney staffer typing ‘Amercia’ or whatever on a web site.

In terms of the effect on American politics, it’s no more significant than a Romney staffer typing ‘Amercia’ or whatever on a web site.

If only that were true, but you know it isn’t. Small molehills always become mountains with the right, and this will be hammered upon forever by the rightwing noise machine. It didn’t matter that George W. Bush sounded like he was mentally incompetent everytime he opened his mouth, or when anyone makes major gaffes on the right. Only when someone on the left makes a gaffe does it become something to yammer on about permanently. For example: “57 States” is something they bring up years after the fact.

Insane? Sure. But that’s how the right likes it.

phx8

The French had a whole collaborating state.

The Poles in general are more heroic than the French, but they also had few chances for collaboration. Many among the Germans were Franophiles. The German disrespect for Poles went back centuries. The Germans occupied France (at least the non-Vichy part). They wanted to destroy Poland as a nation and even as a concept. In this they agreed with the erstwhile Soviet allies. We often forget that it was Nazi-Soviet collaboration to destroy Poland that set off the war in 1939. When the Soviets invaded from the east less than 20 days after the Nazis moved in from the west, Soviet FM Molotov (of the cocktail fame) remarked that Europe was rid of “the monstrosity created by the Treaty of Versailles.” The Soviets held a grudge against Poland because the Poles had defeated the Red Army in 1920, turning around the communist push.

When my president apologizes for this “error” I will be content and speak of it no more.

Taking umbrage over this is a real stretch, C&J. No one has an axe to grind over Poland and the concentration camps.

Royal Flush,

The latest composite poll shows the same we have been seeing for some time: Obama has a lock on 329 electoral votes By the way, that includes the Rasmussen polls, which show a pronounced conservative bias. So that result is a conservative outcome. 329 for Obama. For Romney to win, something will have to change in a big way. He will get a bounce from the GOP convention, but then, Obama will get the same. Romney’s best shot will be the announcement of his choice for VP. It’s the one predicatable bounce Romney will get that Obama will not.

Romney’s one advantage will be the unlimited amounts of anonymous corporate and billionaire money that will be used to attack Obama. No lies will be too extreme, since those lies will not be attributable. Welcome to the world of Citizens United.

In WI, the Walker recall effort is facing a tidal wave of anonymous corporate/billionaire money. Much is being provided by the Koch brothers through their PAC, Americans for Prosperity. They’ve already given more to campaign against Obama than the McCain campaign spent IN TOTAL during 2008. In WI outside sources are outspending the recall effort by somewhere between 4:1 to 25:1, depending on who you ask and how you count.

phx8

I have an ax to grind about this. I have been fighting this “Polish camp” battle for decades. Poles have been fighting this since the end of World War II.

It really is a big thing for those who know the history and is not a matter of a mere geography error. The Obama folks should have done better research, especially since they were holding a ceremony with the specific aspect of honoring a man for heroism in this particular time and place.

The Obama folks should have done a better job. This is the president, after all. I don’t expect everybody to have a complete understanding of history and certainly Obama is unlikely to have it. But they had the chance to do research. Ignorance is a correctable state, but you cannot cure stupid.

C&J-
Do you think Obama really said “Polish Death Camps” as a deliberate poke in the eye to his hosts? Do you really think Obama said that believing Poland ran the Death Camps, and not the Nazis? That sort of Ignorance is hard to believe. It’s only a kneejerk reaction to wording, which if taken to your level of moral dudgeon takes on the aspect of comic exaggeration.

It’s an error of wording, which, with the help of the American Enterprises man in Poland, a former columnist for the National Review, is being made into an international incident.

Given that this post was a silly little thing, it’s not odd in a certain sense that a silly little comment like this shows up. What is odd is the nasty, serious focus this bad wording has produced. This is rhetorical opportunism on your part, not an argument that has any real merit.

Are you going to get this sensitive everytime I poke fun at Romney’s mistakes? If so, this is going to be a loooong election ;-)

tom humes-
The SDI program, like many of these weapons programs we’re paying hundreds of billions for, are unnecessary relics of the Cold War, which is also an apt description of the Neoconservative movement. We’re best rid of both, as a matter of defense policy. Besides, it’s easier to kill something in boost phase, while it’s accelerating with a big infrared target attached.

Ignorance is a correctable state, but you cannot cure stupid.

I find it ironic that Republicans will naturally overreact to this mistake, and call Obama “stupid” and yet are at the same time running a guy for office who serves as an “elder” of a crazy made-up religion of “Latter Day Saints.”

A religion that believes that there are hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of Gods, and that these Gods all once lived as Mormon men who, by strictly adhering to Mormonism, got to rule over their own planets after death with enormous harems of “spirit-wives.”

In Mormonism, the God of our own planet is said to have once been a human man named “Elohim”, who used to live on a planet orbiting the star “Kolab” whose amazingly pious Mormonism allowed him to become the God of our planet. Among “Elohim’s” many wives and the children born of those wives were two sons called Lucifer and Jesus — who argued bitterly over how best administrate our planet.

Elohim of course ultimately chose Jesus’ administrative plan, and of course Lucifer had conniption fits, so to save our planet Elohim then had to travel to earth to and have sex with Mary, who was necessary to give Jesus a flesh-and-blood body — so he could carry out his administrative work for the inhabitants of earth. Thus, ultimately ensuring that in the 1820’s in upstate New York a guy named Joseph Smith would have a bunch of crazy visions and visitations and be able to reveal all this, and all that had transpired with “Elohim and Co.” and then found the Mormon Church in America!

What is America to make of blatant ignorance and stupidity (and yes, insanity) when it is expected to be considered a valid religion that a man running for the office of the presidency fervently believes in?

“I caught a few minutes of Limbaugh this morning, and he was incensed about the CNN interview. He thought it was unfair for Wolf Blitzer to ask Trump about Birtherism.” Phx8.

I guess you missed the main point of Limbaugh’s outrage; the point that the MSM lies about the reason for the interview. But that’s okay; typical liberal hack.

Stephen said:

“Seriously, though, you’re really reaching if you’re trying to turn a minor diplomatic gaffe into a wedge issue.”

I guess this is why Obama issued an immediate apology to the Polish people??? It appears the bamster thought it was a major diplomatic gaff.

Again, Stephen said this:

“C&J-
Do you think Obama really said “Polish Death Camps” as a deliberate poke in the eye to his hosts? Do you really think Obama said that believing Poland ran the Death Camps, and not the Nazis? That sort of Ignorance is hard to believe. It’s only a kneejerk reaction to wording, which if taken to your level of moral dudgeon takes on the aspect of comic exaggeration.
It’s an error of wording, which, with the help of the American Enterprises man in Poland, a former columnist for the National Review, is being made into an international incident.”

I love it; this statement is coming from the same idiot that wasted his time on a post that accuses Romney of a misspelled word, by a staffer. Only in the lala land of a liberal could they express such misplaced outrage.

Adrienne, since you attack Romney’s religion, I am assuming you are willing to attack all religions. Let’s talk about Obama’s Muslims roots; Muslim’s who believe the 12th Imam has been hiding in a well for hundreds of years, but is about ready to show up and lead the Muslim in an all out destruction of the infidels. Talk about a fruit loop.

Adrienne, since you attack Romney’s religion,

I’m afraid I have to — simply because Mormonism is so clearly based upon the ravings of a complete madman.

I am assuming you are willing to attack all religions.

I can’t help but do so with Mormonism because it’s so blatantly nutty and bloody ridiculous, but no, I don’t usually go out of my way to attack any other religion. I think people have every right to worship however they wish.
That being said, I’m not a religious person myself, so I’m also not afraid to confront those who are authoritarian and theocratic, and are working to impose religion upon our government and use it to be exclusionary with our people. I consider that attitude to be mean-spirited and unamerican. Clearly people who try to force religion(s) down the throat of every American means that those people don’t believe in the freedom that is implicit in our American experiment. The idea of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness automatically implies complete religious freedom for those who believe AND a guarantee of freedom from religion for every non-believer as well.

Let’s talk about Obama’s Muslims roots;

He has no Muslim roots. His mother was basically agnostic and didn’t raise him in any particular faith. His parents divorced when he was a toddler and only met his father once more when he was a young kid. Although Obama’s father was raised Muslim, he became an atheist and Obama didn’t follow in those footsteps. Instead, he choose to become a Christian as a young adult and defines himself as such.

Muslim’s who believe the 12th Imam has been hiding in a well for hundreds of years, but is about ready to show up and lead the Muslim in an all out destruction of the infidels. Talk about a fruit loop.

It is indeed fruit loops to refer to Obama as a Muslim. However I realize this fact doesn’t matter at all to those who are bent upon discrediting him in whatever way they believe they can.

Oh wait — that’s not completely correct. I think Scientology is worthy of being mocked and called out as well — and for the exact same reasons.

billinflorida,
Oh. I see. You must not know this. Maybe Limbaugh neglected to mention it. In addition to the CNN interview with Wolf Blitzer, Trump gave two other phone interviews, and raised the Birther issue each time. There was no MSM conspiracy involved, no lies; just Trump going Birther. He loves publicity. He loves self-promotion, and it is embarrassing to see a Republican nominee for President of the United States of America, on the day he clinches the nomination, go to a buffoon like Donald Trump. That’s just wrong. Now, I understand, Romney wants to raise campaign money, and Trump contributed $2 million, but at some point, Romney needs to show some courage and reject people like Trump. The Donald discredits Romney, Republicans, and conservatives alike. He’ll talk Birtherism til the cows come home. He’s just an embarrassment, a national embarrassment, spreading a wingnut conspiracy theory, and Romney associating himself with Trump is a real low in the political process. As George Will noted, Trump is a “bloviating ignoramus,” and while I rarely agree with George Will, this time he nailed it.

On The Daily Show, Jon Stewart spent his opening monologue moaning about how boring Obama & Romney are as candidates, then thanking his lucky comedy stars for the reappearance of Donald Trump.

phx8, you are the one who used Rush Limbaugh as a source. You were the one who said Rush Limbaugh was “incensed” at the Blitzer CNN interview of Trump. But you failed to mention why he was incensed. It was because the pre-interview with Trump had nothing to do with Birtherism. Trump did not bring up Obama’s birth issue, but Blitzer did. Blitzer lied about the subject of the interview and the whole purpose of Blitzer was to establish the daily talking points of the liberal MSM and the talking points of the left. You have fallen into this trap and now you managed to bring up the issue. As with SD and the other liberal’s on WB, you simply discuss the daily talking points of team Obama. Why don’t you try being truthful for once? You also failed to mention Trump’s response to Blitzer; that if they actually covered issues like “birtherism” they would have an audience of more than a handful of people. Who even wastes their time watching CNN?

Adrienne, so let me get this straight; you do not support the 1st Amendment of freedom of religion in America. I am certainly not a Mormon or a Muslim, but I believe all religions in America have the right to believe and teach anything they want, as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. I do not remember Romney ever trying to force his Mormon beliefs down your throat or anyone else’s; perhaps you could provide an example?

You say Obama is not a Muslim; but it was Hillary Clinton who accused him of being one in 2008. Explain the picture:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-518585/Obama-turban-Barack-accuses-Hillary-smear-campaign-circulating-photos-dressed-Muslim.html

Then we have the question that I asked and you failed to respond too; if you attack Mormonism for their ridiculous teachings (according to you), are you equally willing to attack Islam for their ridiculous teachings? Below is a ridiculous belief of Islam:

“John Bolton, former US Ambassador to the UN, has warned that Israel had only days to strike the nuclear reactor at Bushehr in Iran. Bushehr is in the south of Iran, on the coast of the Persan Gulf, and here there is a complex of nuclear reactors under construction. So far, only one of these reactors is ready to go online. Bolton claimed on Tuesday that once Russian technicians had loaded fuel into the reactor, any attack upon the reactor could release large amounts of radioactive material into the outside environment…

…Other nations try to use reason when negotiating with Iran. Such measures are futile as Iran’s insane Mullahs believe that their mythical 12th Imam (who vanished suddenly in the 10th century) will return to the world to act as the prophesized Mahdi only when the world is plunged into chaos. Currently, this character is said to live down a well in the Holy City of Qom, and faithful Shia “Twelvers” write letters and drop them down the well.”

http://onwardjames.blogspot.com/2010/08/12th-imam-prophesized-mahdi-lives-in.html#!/2010/08/12th-imam-prophesized-mahdi-lives-in.html

billinflorida,
Limbaugh SPECULATED about the pre-interview. He wasn’t there. He doesn’t know. Listen to what Limbaugh says. He’s very careful about the way he misleads you. He’s quite a liar. Limbuagh says CNN “probably” told Trump they would talk about this and that. Who would think CNN would actually ask Trump about Birtherism? Especially considering Trump’s history with it, his riding the issue to the top of GOP polls last year? Ha.

Billinflorida, don’t be such a sucker. Limbaugh mislead you, and now you’re in the embarrassing position of foisting a lie. Need proof? Here’s the transcript:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/05/30/trump_blasts_blitzer_on_birther_interview

If you need further proof that you’ve been caught in a lie, just let me know and I’ll start cutting and pasting.

Adrienne,
Is your synopsis of Mormonism true? This is astounding that anyone could believe this. Shouldn’t Romney be smart enough to recognize nonsense in spite of what he was told as a child?

billinflorida,

“Adrienne, so let me get this straight; you do not support the 1st Amendment of freedom of religion in America. I am certainly not a Mormon or a Muslim, but I believe all religions in America have the right to believe and teach anything they want, as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others.”

You seem to forget that the 1st Amendment also allows for expressing that those religious teachings are silly, just as you have done with Islam.

No one has taken away your rights to believe Bill, as you would seek to silence Adrienne.

The Christian right seems all for the 1st Amendment, except when some one is being critical of them.

Rocky

What, did I touch a sore spot here? Romney probably spells perfectly well. He just needs to hire folks with sharper eyes, that’s all.

Whatever happened to the leader accepting responsibility for the organization? The conservatives hold Obama’s hand to the fire for any perceived wrong yet give Romney a free pass on the misspelled AMERICA app? it’s not his fault he had someone do it, it’s not his campaign it’s… oh wait it is his campaign and already ducking responsibility.

billinflorida,
Defending Trump and Limbaugh illustrates the problem: Republicans and conservatives are so motivated by partisanship, hatred of Obama, and in some cases, racism, that they discredit themselves by believing ridiculous things. Those beliefs and conspiracy theories invite mockery and derision. In political terms, those beliefs- Birtherism, that Obama is a socialist, and so on- alienate the middle, independents, moderates, because those beliefs are so obviously disconnected from reality, and voting for someone that supports them is unthinkable. It’s nearly impossible to win an election by spreading Birtherism, but the GOP and conservatives have been engaged in an echo chamber, throwing hatred of Obama back and forth to one another, spouting Birtherism and ‘Obama is a socialist’ and so much other rot, insisting that anyone outside the chamber is evil, that when they step outside the chamber bubble, they get laughed at.

Don’t defend Trump. Don’t defend Limbaugh. When these yahoos start spouting Birtherism and defending Birthers from questions, denounce them. Denounce Trump. Denounce Limbaugh. Disassociate yourself from those people and their hateful conspiracy theories.

At some point, Romney will need to do that. He needs to bring the GOP base back to reality. It’s not as if they’ll vote for someone else, and by doing so, Romney will at least be able to make an appeal to independents and moderates grounded in reality.

I wonder why the birthers and other conservative conspiracy theorist haven’t jumped on the CIA of “AMERCIA” as some kind of subtle brainwashing or plot by Romney? Lord knows were it Obama it would be.

OK j2 when is Obama going to take responsibility for the 3.5 years of screwups instead of blameing Bush all the time??????

Adrienne

You wrote above that you are not religious. You have in the past claimed to be a Humanist. Is your forked tongue working overtime? Humanism declares that everybody is a god.
That sounds pretty wacky to me just as you claim Mormonism is.

SD

“Besides, it’s easier to kill something in boost phase, while it’s accelerating with a big infrared target attached.” That technology is passe. Get up to speed even if it is slow. You have been reading too many comic books.

Maranatha

Rocky, exactly!

Schwamp:

Adrienne, Is your synopsis of Mormonism true?

Tragically, yes it is. That crazy myth is the basis of the Mormon faith (cult). And really, that’s not even the half of the craziness — there’s a lot more truly incredible BS mumbo-jumbo and “mystical secrets” that were revealed to Joseph Smith during his “visions and visitations” with Mormonism that only the top “elders” within the inner circle of the church (who rise up the church ranks) eventually get to learn about. “Elders” such as Mitt Romney.

This is astounding that anyone could believe this.

Agree 100%. It also seems pretty astounding that people are somehow expected to regard Mormonism as an actual religion that is worthy of respect, rather than as hilarious joke worthy of only ridicule along with a certain amount of pity for those who have been duped. (And, the same also goes for Scientology.)

Shouldn’t Romney be smart enough to recognize nonsense in spite of what he was told as a child?

Yes, one would think. Indeed I don’t think there is ANY WAY an intelligent person could possibly remain a Mormon after reaching adulthood. That being said, as with all cults there is definitely shunning involved if a person becomes a “backslider” within Mormonism. This includes the fact that a person’s entire family and community is expected to shun them if they reject the teachings of the “church.” Extraordinarily painful and difficult? Sure, it would have to be terrible. Yet, a person who is truly intelligent would have to be willing to risk that kind of alienation, and make their way out — because the alternative means living one’s entire life within a blatantly nutty cult that preaches complete madness.

Billinflorida:

Adrienne, so let me get this straight; you do not support the 1st Amendment of freedom of religion in America.

Yes, I support the First Amendment. I thought I made that abundantly clear. I support freedom of religion, and freedom from religion.

I am certainly not a Mormon or a Muslim, but I believe all religions in America have the right to believe and teach anything they want, as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others.

Of course. That’s exactly what the First Amendment ensures us as Americans.

I do not remember Romney ever trying to force his Mormon beliefs down your throat or anyone else’s; perhaps you could provide an example?

quote text

I think it should be an automatic given that members of cults that believe blatantly insane crap should not be elected to be the president of the United States.

You say Obama is not a Muslim; but it was Hillary Clinton who accused him of being one in 2008. Explain the picture

I considered that a ridiculous and nonsensical accusation. Dressing in the clothing that is worn by Muslims does not automatically make one a Muslim. It might however, make a person a traveler of the world.
I myself was made to wear a Catholic communion dress and a confirmation dress, but it never made me a Catholic (to my mother’s initial disappointment). I have worn a sari and had beautiful mehndi (henna tatoos) applied to my hands, but that didn’t make me a Buddhist or a Hindu. I have also worn a kimono, but that didn’t make me a follower of Shinto.

Then we have the question that I asked and you failed to respond too; if you attack Mormonism for their ridiculous teachings (according to you), are you equally willing to attack Islam for their ridiculous teachings?

I’m always surprised when people who claim to be Christian attack the Muslim faith wholesale. Because so many of you seem totally ignorant of the fact that Muslims believe that the Torah was the word of God, and that the Book of Psalms is the word of God, and that the original Gospels are the word of God — with Jesus as a holy prophet. Every one of these books are in fact fundamental tenets of Islam — all Muslim’s do is add Muhammad and the Qur’an — which teaches that the five universally acknowledged messengers of Islam are Abraham, Moses, David, Jesus, and Muhammad.

As to your question over their teachings: I personally think it’s complete nonsense. But then, I think that most religion is comprised of nothing but made-up nonsense and BS mumbo-jumbo-hocus-pocus.
The only reason I make the attempt to withhold my wide-ranging criticisms is because I make a serious effort to understand that religion is long upheld traditions that seem important to vast numbers of people, and that what it does seem to do is provide many with a sense of mental comfort.

That being said, I think it’s really obvious that religion (in the general sense) has acted as an incredibly negative force in our world. From early days, up to our present. Because religion separates people and has created enormous amounts of bloodshed and numerous horrific wars.
The way I see it, religion causes too many people to view each other with eyes and hearts full of hatred and prejudice, rather than making them look at each other with eyes and hearts full of love for our common humanity — for our common struggle to survive as open-minded human beings who are capable of treating each other with empathy, kindness and generosity.

Billinflorida-
Wait a second, Trump makes headlines about his birther claims, and he doesn’t expect a major news organization’s anchor to ask him about it?

Riiiiiight. That’s hack spin if I ever saw it. Check the plausibility meter, you buried the needle on THE WRONG SIDE.

As for why Obama apologized? Well, being a member of the Right Wing’s gleefully offensive dittohead legions, you might not realize this, but it’s a good idea to apologize for offending people, even if you didn’t mean anything especially bad or stupid by what you said.

As for making a post about Romney’s fine example of an Amercian typographical error, I freely and fully admit it was a bit of frivolous, lighthearted fun.

Which you don’t seem to be having when you mention Islam. The trouble with the way you talk about these people is that you seem to think that Islam is all of one big, zealous piece, but like many world religions, our own included, Islam today is broken up into all different kinds of sects and denominations.

Obama’s got roots in the muslim world, but he is not a Muslim himself. That you try to make him out to be some kind of zealot is tiresome. Obama seems a poor zealot about just about everything. His demeanor and policies scream moderation, to everybody but the people who have been fed this conga line of BS about him.

As for Hillary? If everything somebody says in the Primaries is taken at face value, then you should have a wonderful time with us and Mitt Romney, because he said some awful things about his opponents, and they’ve said some awful things about him

As for the 12th Mahdi? Give me a break. The political bloodthirst for war should be an open warning to anybody who would vote for you, casually, believing that your party has learned its lessons. What is your exit strategy, how do you get us out of this war you’re so eager to get us into.

Will you pay for it on credit, like the last two? Will you bring back the draft to get enough soldiers to fight this, or in the perennial triumph of hope over experience, will you pretend that all we need to do to conclude the war is carry out airstrikes?

tom humes-
I didn’t hear about this stuff from comic books, I read about it from science and technology magazines. In Boost phase, your projectile is fighting gravity. It’s also not deploying the warheads, or the decoys. It’s got a huge rocket engine burning at one end, and if you take that out, it’s trajectory won’t be to continue on its track.

After Boost phase, your warheads and everything get deployed, and you’re left having to hit a bullet with a bullet, while avoiding cheap decoys with expensive kill vehicles. The real science fiction is the technology to effectively intercept ballistic intercontinental missiles in midflight.

to all-
We don’t need to be bashing anybody’s religion here. To each of us, somebody else’s belief will come across as wierd and irrational. Since we are a secular democracy, we don’t have to care how other people worship, we can worship whatever beings we want, however we want, and believe whatever things we want, even if everybody else thinks they’re whacked out.

Me, for example… Well, I believe some guy came back to the dead after three days of being buried, and one day, everybody will come back from the dead, and be judged by the first guy that came back to life. To some people, that’s some pretty wacky stuff. Some people think the last prophet was some guy in Arabia. Some people think the guy who has the real answer is a former Indian Prince named Siddharta, who sat under a tree for forty days while being harrassed by a demon.

Some people believe the whole thing is just a crock, and some people believe those people are full of it.

Anybody think we’re getting a successful conclusion to that debate anytime soon? I don’t. So I think we all best have to learn to get along with each other, because whoever’s right, many people’s God or teacher say the same thing: treat others like you would like to be treated, get along with other people as much as you can.

Nobody’s going to write laws that change anybody’s ability to worship or not worship as they please, and nobody’s going to see somebody else’s church set up as the supreme one of the country. And nobody, I mean nobody, is going to change what is in somebody’s heart or conscience by using the law as a cudgel to browbeat their beliefs into other people. Anybody who tries doesn’t have enough faith in whoever or whatever they worship to proselytize in a way that gives people a choice.

Adrienne

From what you just penned and what you have written elsewhere you do not practice what you preach.

How do you explain that?

Maranatha

tom humes-
Propaganda is a poor guide to what secular humanists believe.

Just look at what it says on the tin: Secular- as in believing in a non-religious sphere of life, humanist- as in believing that human beings can perfect themselves by use of reason and rational discourse.

And really, that’s a grab bag of a label, which can cover anything from just some ordinary fellow who just isn’t that religious, all the way to a militant atheist like Richard Dawkins.

As for forked tongues? Why do you think it’s appropriate to accuse other Watchbloggers of dishonesty? I don’t think it’s very Christian to lash out at people like that.

tom

You won’t find consistency or even the recognition of inconsistency. It is interesting, however, to see how bigoted an atheist can be.

All

When we are done fooling with a mere typo, we still have President Obama’s inadvertent insult to a brave people caused by some incompetent speech writer. I

I was a little surprised that President Obama was so ignorant as to simply read the offending line. I guess I should not have been. People say he is uber-smart, but his actions as president have not indicated this to be true.

Imagining the world without the positive influence of its great religions and belief in God would be like imagining the United States without our Constitution.

Re religion

It is possible to blame religion for all the trouble in the world simply because we cannot find people in the world w/o a belief system that we can broadly call religion. Atheism is at least as deadly, however, as our communist and Nazi examples have indicated.

But let’s take a step back. Primitive humans, w/o organized religion, are more murderous than modern humans. When missionaries convert primitive tribes to Christianity or even Islam, the rate of violent death plummets.

I don’t know if chimpanzees have religion. They don’t at least by our standards. Chimps are our closest relatives and like primitive humans, they are murderous. As in the case of primitive humans, every single male that wanders into another group’s territory is treated as an enemy and liable to be killed. A single female might be spared, since the local chimps will want to use her for sex.

In the animal world in general, violence is a daily affair. In today’s modern western societies it is an anomaly. It is possible for a modern American to live his/her entire life w/o being witness to serious violence, let along experiencing it. We criticize modern societies for their outbreaks of violence, but in pre-modern ones violence is constant. It is impossible to think of a member of hunter-gathering tribe who could live a complete life (usually much shorter) in the same happy state.

KAP Obama has taken responsibility for his actions. We all need to remember it was 4 years ago, before he was in office that you guys are trying to hang around his neck. But only the most foolish of movement followers believe that tripe. What your upset about is he hasn’t accepted responsibility for the twisted BS conservatives try to blame him for. It’s easy for the obstructionist to say “if only” and “he’s making it worse” because they need no proof to back up their talk. And that is exactly what it is, all talk. The fact is the conservative obstructionist have done more harm in the past 3 years with all the misinformation, half truths and outright lies.

The fact is KAP that all the braying by the conservatives about cutting taxes for the job creators has been proven to be BS. In fact the braying by conservative this past 3.5 years has all been BS. So when are you guys gonna accept responsibility for your actions.

“The Christian right seems all for the 1st Amendment, except when some one is being critical of them.
Rocky
Posted by: Rocky Marks at May 31, 2012 11:21 AM”

Rocky, you are a real idiot; was I critical of any religion? Did I not tell Adrienne that religions in America have the right to teach anything they want unless it affects my rights? Did you not read Adrienne’s rant against Mormonism? I was not critical of Islam, I simply linked to what they believe and teach and asked Adrienne if would be critical of Islam as well. Try to use a little sense when you comment.

Below are the quotes of Adrienne; and I am totally amazed at her lack of intelligence, her hypocrisy, her elitism, and her double standards:

“I’m always surprised when people who claim to be Christian attack the Muslim faith wholesale. Because so many of you seem totally ignorant of the fact that Muslims believe that the Torah was the word of God, and that the Book of Psalms is the word of God, and that the original Gospels are the word of God — with Jesus as a holy prophet. Every one of these books are in fact fundamental tenets of Islam — all Muslim’s do is add Muhammad and the Qur’an — which teaches that the five universally acknowledged messengers of Islam are Abraham, Moses, David, Jesus, and Muhammad.”

I did not attack Islam; I simply linked to statements that pointed to the ridiculous of their teachings and asked your opinion.

“As to your question over their teachings: I personally think it’s complete nonsense. ..

That being said, I think it’s really obvious that religion (in the general sense) has acted as an incredibly negative force in our world. From early days, up to our present. Because religion separates people and has created enormous amounts of bloodshed and numerous horrific wars.
The way I see it, religion causes too many people to view each other with eyes and hearts full of hatred and prejudice, rather than making them look at each other with eyes and hearts full of love for our common humanity — for our common struggle to survive as open-minded human beings who are capable of treating each other with empathy, kindness and generosity.”
Posted by: Adrienne at May 31, 2012 2:16 PM

Adrienne, I have read many of your posts; they are the most obnoxious, hate filled, personal attacking, vile comments I have ever heard and please tell me what part of your comments and please tell me, what part of your comments lead to “eyes and hearts full of love for our common humanity — for our common struggle to survive as open-minded human beings who are capable of treating each other with empathy, kindness and generosity.”

It is okay for you to say anything you want about people, because you have no religious beliefs; but it is not okay for Christians because they have religious beliefs? What kind of double talk is this? You have learned well from SD.

Stephen said:

“Obama’s got roots in the muslim world, but he is not a Muslim himself. That you try to make him out to be some kind of zealot is tiresome. Obama seems a poor zealot about just about everything. His demeanor and policies scream moderation, to everybody but the people who have been fed this conga line of BS about him.
As for Hillary? If everything somebody says in the Primaries is taken at face value, then you should have a wonderful time with us and Mitt Romney, because he said some awful things about his opponents, and they’ve said some awful things about him”

Mr. Outraged, did I say Obama was a Muslim? Or did I link to something Hillary Clinton said? Re/Hillary’s primary, again the double standards Stephen; Everything that was said by Santorum, Gingrich, Perry, or Cain against Romney was all the talk with the left, including you SD. So it was fair game when it was against Romney, but it means nothing when it is against Obama?

And I love this sanctimonious drivel:

“to all-
We don’t need to be bashing anybody’s religion here.”

Since neither I nor any other conservative bashed any religion and since I stated that the 1st Amendment guarantees the right of speech and freedom of religion; I’m sure you are not referring to me. But since it was Adrienne who personally attacked the beliefs of Romney as well as the beliefs of all Mormons; shouldn’t your sanctimonious outrage be leveled at Adrienne. You have no problem being specific when dealing with conservatives, but you have to speak in general when speaking to a liberal.

Tom Humes; the SCOTUS 1963 Torcasso decision decaled Humanism to be a religion.

Obama read what was on the teleprompter, because that is what he does. Reading a speech does not require critical thought.

“I don’t know if chimpanzees have religion.”

Well, I don’t know either. Obama says he’s not a Muslim and he is a Christian. So who really knows?

Billinflorida,

“Rocky, you are a real idiot; was I critical of any religion?…Did you not read Adrienne’s rant against Mormonism?”

Bill does the 1st Amendment guarantee Adrienne’s right to rant against Mormonism?

Yes or no.

Rocky

We don’t need to be bashing anybody’s religion here.

I’m not bashing a religion. I’m bashing a religious cult. And the reason I feel free to do so is because Mitt Romney is an “elder” in the nutty religious cult of Mormonism. A cult which has a history of displaying a lot of very ugly characteristics that could pose serious political and social ramifications for Americans.
Aside from the fact that this cult was built upon a clearly insane myths dreamed up by a madman, Mormonism has had a past of paranoid insularity filled with polygamy, murders and bizarrely bloody events. It has encompassed extreme racism for most of it’s history, and intense sexism and misogyny has been endemic to this cult from it’s very beginning.
Are Mormon’s famous for doing many good works despite all of these things? No, this cult isn’t known for being charitable, despite the great wealth of many of it’s members. However we do see huge amounts of Mormon money being poured into hate-filled campaigns to ensure that gay Americans are denied equality under the law and denied the civil right to marry the people they love.

And this being the case, I do think that Mormon “Elder” Mitt Romney’s nutty cult should be an issue that people are allowed to discuss. Romney’s cult and his politics have quite a lot in common: he’s a plutocrat for the 1% who doesn’t believe in helping the poor, he doesn’t believe in women’s rights, or in rights for gay people, and his party now more than ever before demands an exclusionary, narrow minded government that dictates to it’s citizens, rather than represent all of their interests.

humes:

From what you just penned and what you have written elsewhere you do not practice what you preach.

How do you explain that?

Maranatha

Pot, meet Kettle. You’re a complete fake.

Billinflorida:

Adrienne, I have read many of your posts; they are the most obnoxious, hate filled, personal attacking, vile comments I have ever heard

I’m sure you would think so — because you’re exactly the kind of theocratic, authoritarian religious fanatic I know is dangerous to the health of American democracy. You think these things because I refuse to pull any punches with you.

and please tell me, what part of your comments lead to “eyes and hearts full of love for our common humanity — for our common struggle to survive as open-minded human beings who are capable of treating each other with empathy, kindness and generosity.”

I’m a progressive. Everything I talk about in this forum, and everything I fight for outside of it has to do with those things.

It is okay for you to say anything you want

Yes, thanks to the First Amendment, I can say exactly what I think — even if may offend certain people. And, you can do the same.

Rocky Marks, I will answer your question when you first answer mine.

Tell me all you liberals in WB land; are you all in agreement with Adrienne, or is she just an exception to te liberal left? She’s a real class act, but she’s certainly not attacking a religion…sure. Re/1st Amendment rights; Adrienne, “the rain falls on the just and unjust”.

Bill,
No one else in this forum has to agree with me if they don’t want to. I’m a big girl who isn’t afraid to speak my mind and stand on my own. I know people on your side of the political aisle feel they need to march in lockstep with each other, but people on the left have always tended toward relying on their own reason, thoughts and convictions.

billinflorida,
Yes, I agree with Adrienne. Although I’m very familiar with them, I don’t care for Christianity or Mormonism or Islam or Judaism. You’re welcome to practice whichever one you want. But don’t expect to foist those superstitions on me anywhere, public or private, especially not on the taxpayer’s dime. The Middle Eastern tribal religions are not my cup of tea, and while they have inspired love and goodness for some, they have also inspired a lot of hatred and bigotry and violence.

How’s that constitutional amendment preventing gay marriage coming along?

Billinflorida,

“Rocky Marks, I will answer your question when you first answer mine.”

You have never answered a question I have asked before, so why should I bother.
Your “words” speak for themselves.

Rocky

Oh, and BTW,

“…the SCOTUS 1963 Torcasso decision decaled Humanism to be a religion.”

Actually this case was heard in 1961;

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/367/488/case.html

Black wrote the reference to “secular humanism” in a footnote (#11).

From wikipedia;

“In fact, prior to its use by Justice Black, the term “Secular Humanism” had never before been used in any court case, and it is unclear why Justice Black used the term in this instance, other than to perhaps emphasize the groups’ non-belief in any divine force.

Rocky

phx8

Re gay marriage - I support gay marriage. C and I pay big money because of the marriage penalty. Gay couples tend to be more often two-wage earner families and have more disposal income than non-gay couples. About time they paid their fair share in taxes.

Adrienne, let’s not forget about Joseph Smith in the heirarchy of the Mormon empire….as the great, Grand Poobah of the group.
And….I’ve been wondering if Mrs. Mitt wears her garments under those sleek $500 blouses of hers???

“The fact is KAP that all the braying by the conservatives about cutting taxes for the job creators has been proven to be BS.”

Good point, j2t2. We have had the lowest tax rates in modern history for almost a decade. So, where are the jobs? Perhaps it is a bit more complicated than the simplistic conservative rant.

Adrienne

“You’re a complete fake.”

Well when you got whipped you just fart like a balloon and look what comes out.

You would not know or recognize a fake if it admitted it to you and showed you how he or she is or was a fake. Evidence is the attitude of Eric Holder, Nancy Polosi, Harry Reed, secret service scandal, GSA scandal, MF scandal, and the scandals continue.

You know nothing at all about the way I conduct myself nor some of the other people on here. You think that your “reason, thoughts and convictions” are the only answer to the worlds problems. Got news for ya sister, it don’t work that way. The “reason, thoughts and convictions” of the people who think that way are dangerous and lead to the narcistic approach of being right at all times whether you like it or not.

The left has for decades shown they are not fit for service in our government. They want to grow government until it just can’t grow anymore and then it goes “poof” it is gone and the left wonders what happened.

Maranatha

Billinflorida-
Ah, isn’t it terrible? You think you’ve gotten the better of me, but then I go back and dig up this:

Adrienne, since you attack Romney’s religion, I am assuming you are willing to attack all religions. Let’s talk about Obama’s Muslims roots; Muslim’s who believe the 12th Imam has been hiding in a well for hundreds of years, but is about ready to show up and lead the Muslim in an all out destruction of the infidels. Talk about a fruit loop.

So, What are you saying here?

I disagree with Adrienne’s approach to Mormons. I disagree in general with going after religion. It’s much too personal, and pretty much irrelevant to where policy should or should not be. Even if a policy has a religious basis you might think is splendid, you should have to justify it on a common, universal basis.

I think the bashing of Muslims is no more becoming than the bashing of Christians. Each side has its extremists, but it’s best to deal with them, again, on a universally understandable basis. What makes a person an extremist is their conduct, their willingness to see their will done, regardless of the consequences.

The Torcasso decision didn’t declare secular humanism a religion, it said that Maryland couldn’t require a candidate to affirm a belief in God in order to hold office. The source you refer to is a footnote on that decision.

This source reveals some of the flaws in your argument. For one thing, an observation in a footnote is not legally binding, for another, as the author of the guide entry says:

Another argument commonly offered for the idea that secular humanism is a religion is through reference to the devotion which secular humanists have for their principles and beliefs. Presumably, the defining characteristic of a religion is a person’s zeal and earnestness — but is that a valid way to understand what religion is? As Paul Kurtz has written: Is feminism a religion? Are we devoted to it? Is communism a religion? Is libertarianism a religion? Libertarians are devoted to the free market and actively support it. Is vegetarianism a religion? It seems to me if we were to use the term religion in that way, its definition becomes so wide that it applies to everything. If you’re a devout pinochle player, if your whole life is spent playing pinochle, are you religious in that sense? By such a definition, religion applies to everything and to nothing. It’s a misuse of the language, and it makes no sense.”

My experience of being a secular humanist was not filled with the constant mystical insights of being secular and humanist. I simply believed that what was in front of me was real, and you didn’t need any fancy explanations for that. Reason was a sufficient guide for life. People only call it a religion to get around the fact that too many modern religions make an enemy out of reasoned science and inquiry, rather than a friend. They want Scientists and philosophers who don’t buy religious explanations for how the universe, the earth, and life came to be to look like rivals, rather than participants in an entirely different paradigm of thinking that was more effective at making predictions about what people would find out next about the world.

It’s just a bunch of rhetorical hoo-ha, the instruments of reason applied to the defense of unreason.

“It’s just a bunch of rhetorical hoo-ha, the instruments of reason applied to the defense of unreason.”

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 1, 2012 1:32 AM

Oh, thank you Mr. Daugherty for your plethora of knowledge of what a religion is and is not. This is coming from someone who has a little statue of the bamster surrounded by candles and prayed to every day. This is coming from someone who gets a tingle up his leg at the very menton of the name Obama. This is coming from someone who thinks the words spoken by the bamster are inspired.

I’m glad you say you do not believe in personal attacks on one’s religion; however, you make a general statement of outrage and instead should have specifially been outraged at Adrienne’s attacks, which are disgusting. Since Adrienne is the only one who made the statements.

Re/Adrienne’s continued assaults on personal religious beliefs, and now the rest of the liberals who have joined with her; doesn’t this go against the liberal democrat’s claim that they are the compassionate party? I would consider it a form of racism; if one can attack personal religious beliefs, couldn’t they also attack personal ethnic beliefs? So when Adrienne attacks the religious beliefs as being a joke; then she would have no problem attacking white Americans who live in rural areas and practice evangelical religious beliefs, or Hispanic’s for their Catholic beliefs. Adrienne touts the usual tolerance of the left, but upon deeper inspection we find a deep rooted hatred/resentment toward those who believe differently from her. She is a very sad person who has a great deal of intolerance. Her words betray her.

billinflorida-
This from a person who has a statue of Satan he bows before everyday.

What? I’m only making every bit as factual and provable of an allegation as you are!

Obama’s not perfect, and nor are the Democrats. But I’ve made the reasoned calculation that Republican leaders either don’t know or don’t care about how to do policy right.

I used to think that Republicans had minimum standards below which they wouldn’t go. I used to think they learned their lesson from the Reagan/Bush era, and were full partners in keeping the deficits away. Then Bush 43 came along, with this completely Republican Congress, sending us on the road to where we are today.

I used to think that Republicans would at least act to preserve the integrity of the economy with government action, even if it meant looking a little less conservative. They would do this, because the alternative would be unthinkable. Then the unthinkable happened, and I couldn’t believe my eyes or ears.

I used to think that no Republican would let a war get out of hand, would let this country get involved in another long term disaster like Vietnam. I scoffed that this would happen to us when people started bringing in Vietnam. So, not only does Bush inflict this again on us once, but he does it twice, messing more than one war at once!

I used to think that no Republican would let an enemy of our country, a sworn enemy whose actions had killed thousands of my fellow Americans sit pretty, that he wouldn’t deprioritize that search and worse yet send us on a wild goose chase to an uninvolved country. But the son of a bitch did.

There’s a lot of places where I didn’t think Republicans could sink any lower, and the bad news that even in those places, even where I thought people would learn their lessons or at least stop screwing up, I’ve seen the Republicans double down, and do things that are even worse.

If you want to know where my bipartisan spirit has gone, look for it there, in a hell of broken expectations of actual competence and sanity. Republicans have reacted to their errors not only with denial, but with the promise to commit even more severe mistakes. I’m tired of seeing my country go through hell so some idiots up in Washington and in your party can pretend they’re not ****ing everything up.

I like Obama, but I fear what comes of letting Republicans regain power as I fear another problematic war, another crash of the markets, another disruption of this country’s ability to function, which I think the Republicans are likely to provoke with their policies.

As for Adrienne? If you’re such a shining example of greater morality, forgive her and try to understand her. Otherwise you’re just a demagogue trying to take advantage.

Ugly words coming from those who just 4 short years ago were screaming “The obama isn’t a muslim, but who cares if he is, a persons religion doesn’t matter.”
Another glaring example of typical liberal/progressive hypocricy and intolerance. Not surprising seeing how their entire agenda is based on those two things.

What Mormons believe has nothing to do with the lefts hatred and intolerence towards them. Mormon beliefs are no more ridiculous than islam, wicca, buddah, mother earth etc… The reason for the hatred and intolerence is that the members are predominately white (in the US), teach self responsibility and do not promote government dependence. This makes them an enemy to the leftist fairy tale utopia despite their pretty moderate politics. Add a Republican candidate to the mix and they are an even bigger target that must be destroyed by any means necessary.

It’s ALL about politics. If you don’t fall in lockstep with leftist beliefs, you are a target.

Stephen, you mock Romney for somebody else’s minor spelling error, but you defend an even worse error committed by The obama? Ridiculous!
The far-left extremists would be playing down or ignoring such a spelling error by their side and you know it. Hell, you guys would be creating a campaign to end dyslexia and phoney claims that the Republicans were engaged in a ‘war on the handicap.’

A misspelling and a misquote. Both unintentional, both embarrassing. We didn’t have to wait until January for Romney to “fix” his. If things go as usual, we will probably have to wait a while for The obama to “fix” his. Funny how he can apologize for ‘evil America’ at the drop of a hat but we always have to wait a little bit and be told “what he really mean’t” for his own personal blunders.

kctim-
Have you noticed anybody troubling Harry Reid over his religion? People don’t get troubled over their religion until they start stuffing that religion into their policy. Republicans get troubled over it because they’re persistently demanding laws to suit their judgmental brand of Christianity, persistently boasting of being most religious, and persistently insisting on making America a Christian nation again.

The point of the government’s secularity is to take religion off the table of things we get into political fights over. If you don’t want the stark separation between church and stated, expect religion to become a political issue!

Expect people to deny candidates for office that they think might try to impose a religion on them.

Adrienne’s continued assaults on personal religious beliefs,…

I have read the comments above and cannot seem to find where Adrienne has assaulted anyone Bill in FLA. Unless you are telling us that by giving her opinion on various religions she is assaulting religious beliefs, which would be quite the exaggeration even for you.

It seems to me you are then assaulting the 1st amendment right to Freedom of Speech by attacking her for expressing her opinion. Is that what you are doing?

Stephen
Have you noticed when religious Republicans started getting troubled about this whole thing? It was right around the time liberals started demanding anything and everything with even a possibility of being religious be stripped from almost everywhere. For Christsakes man, our military cannot even honor their falled brothers with a cross because some douchebag is offended.

You guys have gone so overboard with this that you think everything coming from Republicans is “stuffing that religion into their policy.” Give me a freakin break. I am an atheist and I haven’t seen a law yet that imposes Christianity on anybody.

“Have you noticed anybody troubling Harry Reid over his religion?”

Has Romney forced his religion on anybody? No. So why are liberals/progressives troubling him over his religion?

Funny how you guys love to complain about others forcing their religious beliefs onto you but yet you have no problem with forcing your beliefs onto others.
There is no differrence between being forced in the name of religion and being forced in the name of liberalism. Their is not difference between being forced in the name of God or being forced in the name of government.
The founders understood this.

kctim-
Unless you got a specific source for that, I have it on good authority that this is a urban legend. The ACLU itself stands by the right of the fallen to have the religious symbol of their choice placed upon their grave. My grandfather had a rosary with him, I believe when he was buried.

I’ve heard quite a lot of claims that the religious are being persecuted, but in many cases it just seems to be resentment that they aren’t free to proselytize as they want to.

As far as forcing my beliefs onto others?

I would first counter that religious beliefs have a special level of dearness, and so aren’t so comparable to beliefs of a more secular nature.

Second, no government can function without forcing something on those who think it shouldn’t be forced on them. That’s the whole point of having a government, to compel obedience to rules and laws that some might not want to obey.

And third, this country is constructed as a democratic republic, so when things are forced on people, it’s only after a consensus of most people that the rule is desired. If you, however, get what you want, in spite of most people wanting otherwise, the state of affairs may not seem to you an imposition, but it is to those other people.

That’s what you fail to consider. You’re only thinking of what happens to you, how you feel, and what burdens the system puts on you. You don’t look at it the other way around, and recognize the necessity of compromises to mitigate the impositions all around.

Stephen

From just this year:
“Marines fight to protect crosses at Camp Pendleton as atheist groups seek removal”

I already know you can your pick of headstone, for now, but what the hell is wrong with what these Marines are doing? Nothing. But rather than respect the significance and beauty of their actions, liberals scream they are shoving their religion in their faces.

“I would first counter that religious beliefs have a special level of dearness, and so aren’t so comparable to beliefs of a more secular nature”

And you would be wrong. Being forced to do or accept something in the name of a God or government is not freedom.

“Second, no government can function without forcing something on those who think it shouldn’t be forced on them. That’s the whole point of having a government, to compel obedience to rules and laws that some might not want to obey.”

I totally agree. But this is where the limits placed on government come into effect. Without those limits, that “your people” are so willing to ignore in the name of “progress,” we would end up with a government forcing us to comply to others beliefs and that is wwrong.

“And third, this country is constructed as a democratic republic, so when things are forced on people, it’s only after a consensus of most people that the rule is desired.”

Unless that consensus is that of those who are religious, right? Is there really a difference between being forced to help another in the name of God or in the name of government? Nope.

THAT is what you fail to consider Stephen. YOUR beliefs that you wish to force on other are no better or more valid than a religous persons.
Sorry, but your way is no better than theirs simply because you do it in the name of government instead of some God.

President Obama has apologized to Poles for his ignorant remarks. I think we can let him go. Still, he should maybe study up on history and get more intelligent people to work on his staff.

Maybe it was some left over tequila from Columbia that the secret service passed around to the staff in the WH. lol

“Expect people to deny candidates for office that they think might try to impose a religion on them”

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 1, 2012 2:07 PM

First I would ask Stephen to back up his insinuation that Romney is imposing a religion; or is Mr. Daugherty simply making a hypothetical and trying to fool us into believing it is fact.

I will offer proof that Obama’s government is trying to force their liberal agenda down the throats of religion:

http://news.yahoo.com/catholic-dioceses-colleges-sue-over-obama-mandate-170638865.html

Stephen, The same was thought of Kennedy because they thought he would sell out to the pope. IT NEVER HAPPENED!!!!!!!!!!

KAP-
What I recall is that Kennedy made a speech in Houston specifically denying that he would take marching orders from the Vatican. So, the fact he never did it would come as no surprise, as he said he wouldn’t.

Do you recall what Republican Candidate Rick Santorum said about that speech earlier this year?

That’s your difference, right there.

kctim-
That’s quite a bit different from what it sounded like you were talking about. For my part, I couldn’t see much wrong with what they were doing, if it wasn’t an Army base, if it wasn’t something set at the end of a hike Marines are required to take, after which, they are given a sermon by their commanding officer.

It isn’t just atheists objection, though, it’s plenty of Christian soldiers, plenty of folks of some religion who feel that they are being imposed on by superiors who are using their position to compel attention and obedience they might not otherwise get. Christianity is not merely one size fits all, and once you get into the argument of whether the Marine Corp can support religious displays and observances like this, then you get into the argument of whose particular brand of Christianity should dominate. The Framers did not found this country to see it torn apart over sectarian matters. The wars Europe suffered over questions of religion were fresh in the minds of the framers as they dealt with the matter. They realized that the dispute itself would be harmful to the peace of the nation, so they basically took it out of the equation by making the government neutral on such matters.

As far as your definition of freedom?

There’s nothing like that short of anarchy. But anarchy is like balancing an umbrella on your finger- sooner or later it has to fall in some direction. When there aren’t any laws, and nobody can compel anything by government, they compel things by force.

Then where is your freedom? You have no more freedom than you have firepower. Inevitably, somebody concentrates enough, and guess what? No more freedom. You obey the people who have the biggest, best, and most guns, or you get it.

Me, I like constitutional democratic republics, where you don’t need a gun to have your say in government, where you yourself choose the person who has that power, and you can send them out on their keister if you want.

Inevitably, somebody gathers power. In our system, we can gather it back from them, if we put our minds to it. I look at the fearfulness about government among many on the right, and I’m just puzzled by it. Really, folks, you can, and in many cases have rallied to change it. Yet you indulge these paranoid fantasies about it coming to get you.

Me, I think leaders feed people those fantasies because it makes them gullible, because it leads them to ignore the people who say bad things about them as politicians, because they’re part of the plot.

Who do you turn to, then? Too many people have become isolated from independent voices in the media, too many have bought into the liberal media meme. It makes it easier for the right wing politicians to panic them, to feed them one-sided information and assumptions. Even if they try to be independents politically, if they fail to sever themselves from the conservative media, they just get feedback into the support base for the GOP again, though they no longer identify with it.

I don’t confuse freedom with lawlessness. I believe it’s best identified with a reasonable restraint on the extent of the law. I think the lighter a hand government can govern with, the better. But I think where there are problems, where people don’t self-police their behavior, and that behavior is leading to bad results, the law should be brought in. Otherwise, the behavior of some can become a burden to us all. No government can do its job without some degree of coercion; not everybody can be expected to stop doing bad things that they profit by. That’s why we don’t ask con men to kindly stop fleecing people, or muggers to stop hitting people over the head and take their wallets. It’s why we put embezzlers in jail, rather than just give them a stern talking to.

Billinflorida-
The Catholic Bishops have not always shown the best of judgment, and I say this as a Catholic myself. They let the Child Molestation issue get too out of hand, prefering to try and cover it up rather than confront the issue and take the heat. For that, they have ended up making a constant, unending headache, and a true scandal in the old sense of the word- that is, an action that leads others to sin.

Now they wade into political discussions. You don’t think that won’t lead to people questioning religion as a part of political discussions?

It’s easy to fall into the trap of worldly political power without realizing the cost that comes with it. The cost is, you are no longer off limits, and the backlash against the political can become synergistic with the backlash against the religious.

Your right Stephen he did but people were still skeptical. I know first hand because I was in High School at the time he was elected. So now you throw religion into the mix but I think people are over the religion worry when electing a president because of Kennedy putting their worries aside. Santorum, I didn’t pay much attention to because I figured he was a short timer in the race as he was.

KAP-
I think it matters what precedents you set. If you recognize the limits of the first amendment of religion’s advantage or disadvantage by government policy, then your religion becomes a moot point for most. Nobody has to fear you would promote your doctrine through the law, nobody has to fear that you would cut short theirs through the law. There are limits, of course- just ask a Rastafarian- but America’s traditions have kept religion strong in this country. Why?

Well, if you look over there in Europe, the problem is that as the right wing governments fell out of favor, the religious establishments (literal establishments) fell out of favor with them. And those governments could bind the hands of religion in those places.

I believe that the trouble with folks here is that they’re kind of spoiled. They don’t know what a true lack of religious freedom actually looks like, so they confuse it with not having the government cater to their whims and doctrines on policies. I think my own church has picked a stupid fight on healthcare, one that makes it all the more clear to folks that they’re not politically neutral. So, what do you think happens if the Republicans lose influence in this election?

Robust support for religion in America comes because people choose it, rather than simply obey the dictate of a state that requires it. Personal choice trumps obedient submission every day. It’s not as dependable, but at least you have people’s hearts and mind for real, not a bunch of people who would secretly rather be somewhere else (and who later given freedom from such requirements WILL be somewhere else.)

Stephen said:

“KAP-
What I recall is that Kennedy made a speech in Houston specifically denying that he would take marching orders from the Vatican. So, the fact he never did it would come as no surprise, as he said he wouldn’t.”

Well Stephen, you weren’t around when JFK ran for president, but I was; and it was a great fear in America to vote in a Catholic. Secondly, what you are saying is that a politician told the truth; so you now believe politicians are truthful or just Democrats?

Again Stephen opines:

“Billinflorida-
The Catholic Bishops have not always shown the best of judgment, and I say this as a Catholic myself. They let the Child Molestation issue get too out of hand, prefering to try and cover it up rather than confront the issue and take the heat. For that, they have ended up making a constant, unending headache, and a true scandal in the old sense of the word- that is, an action that leads others to sin.
Now they wade into political discussions. You don’t think that won’t lead to people questioning religion as a part of political discussions?
It’s easy to fall into the trap of worldly political power without realizing the cost that comes with it. The cost is, you are no longer off limits, and the backlash against the political can become synergistic with the backlash against the religious.”
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 1, 2012 11:08 PM

So Stephen is saying the Catholics have no right to wade into politics because A: they tolerated child molestation, or B: because they are a religion and religion has not right to discuss politics.

Someone should have told the corrupt Eric Holder when he met with the pastors of black churches this week telling them what to preach from their pulpits.

http://rightwingnews.com/barack-obama/eric-holder-meets-with-black-pastors-regarding-2012-election/

Stephen’s problem with religion is a straw man to cast negativity on Romney. KAP, if you remember, it was Stephen and the left who were all excited that the evangelical Christians would never support Romney because he was a Mormon. Well, that never happened and evangelicals have no problem with Mormonism and Romney. Then they are attacked Romney because his g-g-grandfather lived in a Mormon community that practiced polygamy, and it turned out his ancestor was not a polygamist, but Obama’s was; and now it’s an attack on Romney because he will impose Mormonism on every American citizen. How ridiculous, in fact if we look at what has been said over the past year; the only one to bring up Romney’s religion has been Stephen and his socialist friends, and no conservatives. In fact Stephen and the liberals have brought up the religion of Romney because it was first brought up by Obama’s admin. So once again, they are the water boys for Obama’s policies.

Bill, your right as an evengelical Christian I could care less what the persons beliefs are, all that matters is HOW HE GOVERNS.

It is interesting that our leftish friends feel so free to engage in religious bigotry.

I think we have seen a big change. Liberal used to mean open minded and tolerant. Liberals have kept the name. Even those who now prefer the name “progressive” still think they are open minded and tolerant. But they are not.

Liberals are tolerant of all types of thought, as long as it fits into the left half of their universe.

They made an interesting exception for Islam. Islam is retrograde by almost all the measures they would usually apply, but since the we - and especially George Bush - seemed to have some trouble with Islam, our leftish friends jumped to complete tolerance.

Now we see some bigots here criticizing Mormons for being polygamous 100 years ago, wearing particular types of clothes and having basic beliefs they don’t like.

What happened to tolerance and open-minded outlooks?

Let’s look at Mormonism from a strictly secular point of view. The crime rate among Mormons is lower than the national average, as is the poverty rate. Mormons give a lot to charity. Many Mormons speak second languages fluently. In other words, but all the secular indicators, they are doing something right.

Sorry. They typo might make my statement confusing.

I meant to say BY all the social indicators, they [Mormons] are doing something right.

Yes, you are correct; liberals are the most intolerant people. But don’t you find it interesting they had so much to say about the intolerant evangelicals not accepting Romney or supporting him and yet we find it is the left who has a problem with his religion. Not just a problem, but judging from Adrienne’s comments, a real hatred for what Mormons believe. Then we have to note the rest of the liberals chiming in to support the hatred she spews.

Re/Islam; if you will remember, liberals do not want to call the 911 attack an act of war. To hem it is an illegal action, and should have been handled by the police and not the military. They have no problem with the slaughter of women and children in Arab nations, but what they do have was a problem with puppet governments set up by US presidents. So they will support any movement (including the Muslim Brotherhood) who topples these governments.

It is interesting that our leftish friends feel so free to engage in religious bigotry.

I think we have seen a big change. Liberal used to mean open minded and tolerant. Liberals have kept the name. Even those who now prefer the name “progressive” still think they are open minded and tolerant. But they are not.

Bullshit. Progressives know who our enemies are — and a lot of our enemies are in the cult of Mormon and have mountains of money to spend in order to try to hurt people with their anti-progress, anti-woman, anti-gay rightwing authoritarianism.

Case in point:

link text

No news conference or news release trumpeted Romney’s executive order on Bunker Hill Day, June 17, 2003, in the deserted Statehouse. But when civil rights leaders, black lawmakers and other minority groups learned of Romney’s move two months later, it sparked a public furor.

Romney drew criticism for cutting the enforcement teeth out of the law and rolling back more than two decades of affirmative action advances.

Civil rights leaders said his order stripped minorities, women, disabled people and veterans of equal access protections for state government jobs and replaced them with broad guidelines. They complained Romney hadn’t consulted them before making the changes, snubbing the very kind of inclusion he professed to support.

“It was a cloaked and unilateral move that eradicated years and years of civil rights advances and history. It was an astonishing act.”

Instead, this is the kind of shit Progressives automatically expect. Romney tried to rip away protections from people who are often discriminated against because he (along with many of the people in his party, as well as his religious cult) thinks that the only people who should matter and run this nation are just like him: white, male, able-bodied, and wealthy enough to have managed to avoid serving in our military (neither has any of his five sons).

Adrienne

I guess it is good to have an enemies list. Nixon had one; I hear that Obama has one and now we know that you have one.

I also read that thing about affirmative action. I still look forward to a time when we will judge people by the content of their characters and not the color of their skins. And I agreed with Romney’s first move that we should treat people as individuals. IMO the problem is that he collapsed under the pressure and rescinded the order.

Now the example you gave can indicate why you hate Romney and put him on your enemies list, but I didn’t see why you should condemn all Mormons. Maybe we should judge men and women by the content of their characters and not the way they try to find God.

One thing more about Mormonism - Mormons are very active in South America and Africa where they tend to target and convert the less well-connected people in society, i.e the poor and non-white. In fact, a majority of Mormons have lived outside the U.S. since 1996. The poor “problem” is that when people convert to Mormonism and take up the habits of hard work, abstinence from alcohol, not cheating on their spouses etc, their economic conditions tend to improve. In fact, Mormonism seems to be one of the more effective anti-poverty programs.

Re military service - I was unaware that Barack Obama was a veteran. I never would have thought that having served in the military was important to you. Do you dislike all who have not served their country in war zones?

Adrienne

I guess it is good to have an enemies list. Nixon had one; I hear that Obama has one and now we know that you have one.

Know your enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles, you will never be defeated. When you are ignorant of the enemy but know yourself, your chances of winning or losing are equal. If ignorant both of your enemy and of yourself, you are sure to be defeated in every battle.

—-Tao Te Ching by Lao Tzu

Nixon was a madman, and he ended up defeated and disgraced.
Obama knows that the entire Republican Party treats him as an enemy — he is not ignorant of this clear fact. And, the entire left knows that the Republican Party wants to undo or destroy every single achievement the left has ever fought for and won in this country.

I also read that thing about affirmative action. I still look forward to a time when we will judge people by the content of their characters and not the color of their skins.

The people of you party are the ones who obviously have enormous problems. With people who aren’t white. With women. With gay people. With immigrants. With Atheists and Agnostics. And, with anyone else who doesn’t agree with your Plutocratic/Fascistic/Extreme-Christianist Rightwing agenda.

And I agreed with Romney’s first move that we should treat people as individuals.

This nation hasn’t come far enough for that yet — because conservatives are too prejudiced against too many people.

IMO the problem is that he collapsed under the pressure and rescinded the order.

In my opinion, the problem overwhelmingly has to do with conservative people and the fact that they’re trying to uphold a white, male, wealthy status quo from times past. Their new way of discriminating is to try to deny that discrimination still exists, and while discriminatory words and actions spew forth from them continually. But in denying the existence of discrimination they claim this gives them right to undo all the laws that the left has fought so hard for.
The only people they can really fool with that crap is the people in their own party.

Now the example you gave can indicate why you hate Romney and put him on your enemies list, but I didn’t see why you should condemn all Mormons.

I think I’ve done a good enough job of spelling out exactly why I think the Mormons are nuts and backwards and elitist. The only thing I can think to add to what I’ve already said is the fact that members of the Mormon church donated upwards of $20 Million Dollars on Prop 8 (Hate) in California — in order to deny equal rights to gay people, including my own friends and neighbors.
I consider this despicable and beneath contempt.

Maybe we should judge men and women by the content of their characters and not the way they try to find God.

I’m judging them on their LACK OF CHARACTER, on the CALLOUSNESS AND CRUELTY of their character, and I’m really very sorry, but the way they “try to find God(s)” has to do with incredibly insane bullshit like “Elohim and the Planet Kolab” and every strict-practicing Mormon Male getting a planet and a harem of wives of their very own following death.

One thing more about Mormonism - Mormons are very active in South America and Africa where they tend to target and convert the less well-connected people in society, i.e the poor and non-white.

Proselytizing missionary vultures.

In fact, a majority of Mormons have lived outside the U.S. since 1996.

Sure — and anyone who gives money to the Mormons is paying to have these missionaries cover the globe, preying upon poor people and trying to get them to convert to their backward, nonsensical religion. They don’t convert too many, however.

The poor “problem” is that when people convert to Mormonism and take up the habits of hard work, abstinence from alcohol, not cheating on their spouses etc, their economic conditions tend to improve. In fact, Mormonism seems to be one of the more effective anti-poverty programs.

Have you joined the cult, Jack? It sounds like you’re advertising. Personally, I think they should have taken that $20,000,000 dollars they spent in California to ensure that gay people can’t have equal rights, and spent it on digging some sewers and wells for fresh water, or on medicines that are desperately needed, or spent it on the AIDs crisis in Africa.

Re military service - I was unaware that Barack Obama was a veteran.

He’s not — but he’s definitely been trying to do right by them.

As opposed to Romney. Mitt Romney was the kind of chickenhawk that supported the Vietnam War and even counter-protested against those who were demonstrating against the war, but of course he wasn’t made to go and fight in it. Instead, Mitt Romney went on holiday to France as a missionary to try to round up a few ignoramuses (Romney claims he got 10-20 during the almost three years he was there) to be converted into Mormons.

I never would have thought that having served in the military was important to you.

My youngest nephew is in the Air Force. And chickenhawk conservatives seem to be itching to start yet another war.

Do you dislike all who have not served their country in war zones?

I dislike chickhawk rich Republicans like Romney (and Bush Jr. and Dick Cheney) who were all for the war, yet able to get out of having to serve in Vietnam — while my cousin was forced to go serve despite the fact that he didn’t even believe in the war, got one of his arms blown off, and was never quite the same after he returned.

Adrienne

Re gay marriage and prop 8 you say “Mormon church donated upwards of $20 Million Dollars on Prop 8 (Hate) in California … I consider this despicable and beneath contempt.” I suppose you are aware the the biggest opposition to gay marriage was in the black community that voted more than 7 in 10 against gay marriage. Do you hate them too?

Re Mormon converts, you say - “They don’t convert too many, however.” Interesting then that there are more Mormons living in outside the U.S. than in. They must have converts somebody. There are more than a million Mormons in Brazil, since there has been no significant immigration from Utah, we have to assume that these guys believed in some other religion before. When someone changes from one religion to another, most of us understand that as a conversion. Of course you may use a different definition.

Re serving in the military - it is good that you know one person who is serving in the military.

What war do you think “chickenhawk” conservatives are itching to start?

Re Mormonism, anti-poverty and me - I could not be a Mormon because I live on caffeine and like to booze from time to time. But from what I have seen of Mormons, they have admirable lifestyles. As a group they commit less crimes, have a lower poverty rate, enjoy better health and give more to charity. These must be good things even to you. Beyond that, formerly poor coverts to Mormonism tend to begin to achieve the benefits above.

My research into the subject (yes I have actually worked on this) indicates that in developing countries women are more likely to embrace conversion. They do this because they want their husbands not to drink to excess, have sexual liaisons outside the marriage or commit domestic violence. The incidence of these maladies is lower among converts. That is why I called it a good anti-poverty program.

In the interests of a scientific explanation, I have been unable to separate causality, i.e. are people who seek conversion more likely to make beneficial changes in their lives or does conversion facilitate changes. I think both are true and reenforcing.

I realize that I may have told you more than you want to understand. You can now call it right wing BS, as is your wont.

I have not visited this thread lately.

The strategy seems to be the same as usual; distract from things that really matter.

It seems increasingly likely (if not 100% inevitable) that most of us are going to get our education the hard way.
It does not have to be that way, but that is what has already started, and will only get worse for decades to come. It is now too late to avoid the painful consequences of decades of selfishness and ignorance.

Untenable DEBT is a large part of the problem, but that debt, and most (if not all) problems, and the decline of the U.S. is simply rooted in too much nation-wide selfishness and ignorance.

The U.S. is the biggest debtor nation in the world, and the only solution left is create more new money out of thin air, in order to try to pay down the debt of nightmare proporation with increasingly devalued U.S. Dollars, and essentially destroying currency and the economy along with it. The alternatives are equally painful now, because there are no good alternatives left.

Where will the money come from to merely pay the INTEREST on $57.6 Trillion of nation-wide debt, much less the money to reduce the current PRINCIPAL debt of $57.6 Trillion, when that money does not already exist?
Especially with:

• 80% of the U.S. population owning only 17% (or less) of all wealth, and 1% owns over 40% of all wealth (up by 20% from 20% in year 1976); a wealth disparity gap that has never been worse since the Great Depression?
  
• the M2 Money Supply of $9.94 Trillion and the Federal Reserves of $2.6 Trillion is less than 22% of the $57.6 Trillion nation-wide debt?
  
• the $15.75 Trillion federal debt is $138,575 per tax payerthe M2 Money Supply of $9.94 Trillion and the Federal Reserves of $2.6 Trillion is less than 22% of the $57.6 Trillion nation-wide debt?
  
• the $15.75 Trillion federal debt is over 103% of the $15.19 Trillion GDP?
  
• nation-wide debt of $57.6 Trillion equates to over $180,000 per person, and over $509,000 per tax payer ?
  
• nation-wide debt of $57.6 Trillion is 3.8 times the U.S. GDP of $15.19 Trillion (200% higher than in year 1956) ?
  
• the U.S. has fallen to 14th in Reading, 25th in Math, and 17th in Science (based on 2010 OECD scores) ?
  
• U.S. unemployment has been above 8.0% since year 2009 ?
  
• nation-wide debt of $57.6 Trillion is over $693,639 per family ?
  
• incessant inflation is used to battle debt, but destroys wages and savings; a 2001 U.S. Dollar is now only worth 77 cents; and a 1950 U$D is only worth 11 cents; and a 1913 U$D is now only worth 4 cents; the effect of incessant inflation, year-after-year-after-year; non-stop inflation since year 1956 …?
  
• real income has been shrinking for years; incomes have not been keeping up with inflation;?
  
• many of the economic statistics not being reported accurately, and many statistics are being fudged to make matters look less severe;?
  
• millions of more foreclosures and bankruptcies are still in the pipeline
  
• many trillions spent for stimulus and increased the already massive debt, with little (if anything) but more debt to show for it?
  
• regressive taxation;?

But don’t worry about it.
None of that is important.

At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, … , and re-elect, and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, repeatedly rewarding the duopoly, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, greedy, selfish, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Congress with perpetual re-election, despite these perpetual abuses, finally becomes too painful.

Jack:

I suppose you are aware the the biggest opposition to gay marriage was in the black community that voted more than 7 in 10 against gay marriage.

There are well over 37 million people living in California, and only 2.3 million of our population claim to be black. Do the math.

Do you hate them too?

No, but I do think there are a lot of people need to evolve on this issue, and try to empathize with those who are being denied rights due to archaic long-standing traditions, prejudice, and hate.

Interesting then that there are more Mormons living in outside the U.S. than in.

Not surprising at all. Mormons don’t use birth control. The women are expected to pop out enormous broods of children, and the male children are all sent overseas as missionaries.
Many marry converts and start their own enormous broods.

They must have converts somebody. There are more than a million Mormons in Brazil, since there has been no significant immigration from Utah, we have to assume that these guys believed in some other religion before.

Mormons don’t use birth control. They breed more Mormons than they convert. Not totally unique of course — other religions do the same.

Re serving in the military - it is good that you know one person who is serving in the military

My nephew isn’t the only one, but he’s the dearest to my heart.

What war do you think “chickenhawk” conservatives are itching to start?

Iran.

But from what I have seen of Mormons, they have admirable lifestyles.

I don’t think cults are admirable. I don’t find their insularity and the cruelty of shunning non-believers to be admirable. I don’t find treating women as second class citizens admirable. I don’t think forcing women to have enormous broods of children is admirable. I don’t find enforced missionary work for their offspring admirable. I don’t find the proselytizing of cults admirable.

As a group they commit less crimes, have a lower poverty rate, enjoy better health and give more to charity.

I think they have a backward, antiquated culture. And I don’t consider giving money to the Mormon church to be charity. To me charity is selfless giving that asks for nothing in return for helping people who are less fortunate. I don’t see or hear about the Mormon’s doing much giving in that regard.

Beyond that, formerly poor coverts to Mormonism tend to begin to achieve the benefits above.

Mormon men have all the power, and they don’t view women as their equals.

My research into the subject (yes I have actually worked on this) indicates that in developing countries women are more likely to embrace conversion. They do this because they want their husbands not to drink to excess, have sexual liaisons outside the marriage or commit domestic violence. The incidence of these maladies is lower among converts. That is why I called it a good anti-poverty program.

This makes no sense. If the women convert but the men don’t, how is that outcome achieved? Or are you saying there are more women in developing countries who are looking to marry fewer Mormon husbands? I suppose that’s possible since there are some sects of Mormon where the men take multiple wives…

In the interests of a scientific explanation, I have been unable to separate causality, i.e. are people who seek conversion more likely to make beneficial changes in their lives or does conversion facilitate changes. I think both are true and reenforcing.

I think women would need to weigh and consider whether those beneficial changes were worth being treated like second class citizens and brood mares for a cult that can not abide anyone who dares to question their nonsensical dogma.

Btw, it’s interesting that mostly what you chose to address from my previous post was Mormonism.

Billinflorida-
What I’m saying is that having the right to send a message, to speak up about politics, doesn’t mean that you’ll do all that well if you do so, especially if recent events have made you look more like a worldly institution protecting itself at the expense of those who trusted it, than a spiritual organization that shepherds its flock well.

Someone should have told the corrupt Eric Holder when he met with the pastors of black churches this week telling them what to preach from their pulpits.

This is my answer:

To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.

Most churches are organized as that kind of non-profit, so telling them where the line is drawn is not telling them what to preach. It’s advising them on what activities they can legally engage in without losing their tax exempt status as churches.

As far as religious intolerance goes? Adrienne is entitled to dispute the value of the tenets of Mormonism. I would advise her, though, that she’ll make few converts of those who do not share her beliefs about the Mormon church. Whatever else these people are, they’re Americans and they’re human beings, and showing them respect reflects well on us, even when we disagree with them. If you want to truly challenge people, you have to challenge them on grounds even they will find hard to disregard.

As far as 9/11 goes, I don’t think you know what you’re talking about. Speaking personally, most liberals I know saw it as an act of war, of al-Qaeda against America.

But as far as “puppet governments” go, I think you fail to consider the cost of such an imposed government. For one thing, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, a major founding component of al-Qaeda, was born of the Egyptian prisons, where many of its initial members were held, tortured, radicalized, Ayman al-Zawahiri among them.

Force doesn’t always discourage those who are violent against us. It can encourage violence in response, in revenge. If you want peace, sow peace.

Adrienne

Re Math - There are 37 million people in California and 533,741. Why do you apply the double standard? If you hate Mormons based on their voting on this referendum, you must also hate blacks. Hate is a terrible thing.

Re Mormons outside the U.S. - presumably Mormon behavior caused by the faith is similar among Mormons. The fact that Mormons encourage children is irrelevant to your argument.

Re starting wars with Iran - You guys have been predicting that war for a decade. I have written dozens of times telling you it was not imminent. Let me do it again here, as I did in 2004,2005,2006, 2007,2008, 2009,2010 & 2011. I also wrote on some of those occasions that I would denounce such a war as un-winnable and wasteful. I have seen people die and believe me that I want to avoid that again more than you do. Sometimes, however, attempts to avoid an evil ends up allowing a greater evil. But you may continue to believe what you want.

Re charity - you can give the 10+% of your income that I am sure - as a good woman - you must contribute to the charities that you consider good. They give to theirs. They don’t expect anything in return any more than you do.

Re shunning non-believers - I have several good friends who are Mormons. I have never been shunned. Of course I do not participate in their church, but the same is true of any religion. When I visit the home of some Orthodox Jews, they did not let me eat off the same plates. I thought that was odd. Beyond that, I have always felt fully welcomed by religious people I have visited.

Re Mormon lifestyle - as I said, Mormons are less likely to commit crimes or fall into poverty; they enjoy generally better health than the general population (not boozing or smoking helps). Would you prefer the opposite?

Re women converts - the women drive the decision. They strive to use the power of peer pressure on their formerly wayward husbands. It is an interesting dynamic. Women actually drive lots of such decisions, which is why development people often try to target them. They are not quite as powerless or stupid as people who never talk to poor people outside the U.S. think they are.

Churches often fulfill various social and economic functions. Rich or childless women do not understand many of these, which is why, IMO,they discount them. Often very important are free or inexpensive day-care and just having places to do to meet friends and/or people in similar conditions. It is also difficult for many people to understand that intelligent people will make choices different from their own. It is much easier to assume that they are oppresses or ignorant. It gets harder to believe these things when you see the success they achieve.

Of course, if you believe that your particular region is the best way to seek a relationship with God, other considerations become secondary.

Which part of your previous post do you feel I did not address? I sometimes lose track of the various parts and am sometimes unsure which are serious questions.

Adrienne

I didn’t finish my first sentence “There are 37 million people in California and only 533,741 - Mormons.”

To put that in the same perspective you used and taking your word on the statistics 2.6 million blacks and 0.54 million Mormons. So it is hard for you to blame Mormons and not blacks, since there are 5x as many. Maybe it would be better to blame neither for their honestly held views, but that would be a little too tolerant for today’s progressives.

“There are 37 million people in California and only 533,741 - Mormons.”

20 million dollars from Mormons in California AND Nevada were needed to for fear-based advertisements in order to deny gay people their rights in our state.

shunning non-believers - I have several good friends who are Mormons. I have never been shunned.

Duh. I’m talking about the fact that Mormons shun their own when they don’t believe the drivel of their faith. People outside the faith are viewed as potential converts.

Re women converts - the women drive the decision.

Am I supposed to applaud women assisting in their own demotion to second class citizenry? I can’t do that.

Churches often fulfill various social and economic functions.

Clubs can fill the same role — and don’t tend to require their members believe in nonsensical crap.

Maybe it would be better to blame neither for their honestly held views, but that would be a little too tolerant for today’s progressives.

Don’t try to hang what I’ve written on all Progressives. I’m speaking for myself, and I think that anyone who honestly believes the crap the Mormons are selling would have to be either incredibly stupid or maybe have several screws loose.

Adrienne

So you blame the Mormons for giving money but not the 70%+ blacks that voted for against gay marriage. This is sort of the old American Nazi party formulation that the Jewish money is using black muscle.

I was looking at the results. Almost 80% turnout and gay marriage lost by 599,602 votes, more than the total number of Mormon, which would include adults and (as you might say) many children who cannot vote.

The figures I found was that $39.9 million was raised for and $43.3 million against prop 8. So even with the big bucks from the Mormons (as you say), the anti side outspent the pro side by $3.4 million and still lost by more than a half million votes. And you blame the Mormons?

re shunning - you said they shun non-believers. I will take the “duh” as a recognition of your own misstatement, but I caution you that it might seem to others that you were trying to project your own mistake on to my statement.

The usual term for people who reject their religion is not non-believers, which would include all not of that religion, but apostate.

Re women driving the decision - you have no particular reason to applaud or criticize. It is their decision and I (unlike you) give them credit for a reasonable intelligence to make their own decisions.

Re religions and clubs - I suppose clubs can fulfill the role. They tend not to. But again, it is the choice of the people involved and I respect their humanity enough to respect their choices.

Re - “Don’t try to hang what I’ve written on all Progressives. I’m speaking for myself” I understand very well that you speak only for yourself and other progressives might not want to be associated with your ideas. I would not blame them.

Adrienne

So you blame the Mormons for giving money

Correct. I blame Mormons in California, Nevada, Utah and elsewhere for the 20 million dollars worth of fear and smear advertising they paid out in order to block gay people from gaining equal treatment under the law in California. Their vicious hatred of gay people is despicable, and their actions are a betrayal of the ideas and ideals of America and what we’re supposed to embody and represent.

but not the 70%+ blacks that voted for against gay marriage.

Correct. Because blacks merely voted against gay rights, they didn’t go out of their way raising millions of dollars in order to malign, denigrate and attack this group of people.

This is sort of the old American Nazi party formulation that the Jewish money is using black muscle.

FU.

The figures I found was that $39.9 million was raised for and $43.3 million against prop 8. So even with the big bucks from the Mormons (as you say), the anti side outspent the pro side by $3.4 million and still lost by more than a half million votes.

What a completely screwed up way you view this. Yeah, a whole lot of money had to be raised by people who support equal rights for gay people in California. They were doing so in the face of a bigoted proposition to amend the state constitution that had been proposed and championed by a lot of religious bigots. Is there supposed to be something WRONG with raising money to combat the clear HATRED and BIGOTRY of regressive religious fanatics trying to deny people their rights?

And you blame the Mormons?

Yes. I blame Mormons all over the country for actually making support for the passage of Prop8(Hate) in California a part of their church services. I blame them for the way they asked their cult members to donate generously to crush rights. I blame them for starting a website dedicated solely to denying American citizens equal rights and protections under the law. And I blame Mitt Romney for the $10,000 he gave to support the passage of Prop H8 as well.

Speaking of Romney and his insular cult — I read today that he picked former Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt, a Mormon, to head up his transition team. Surprised? Nope.

re shunning - you said they shun non-believers.

You always know you’re dealing with a cult when it becomes clear that shunning is part of what they do as a group. Actual religions don’t shun people simply because they question their faith, or have their faith shaken, or even lose their faith. Nor do real religions demand that their members ostracize members of their own families and/or communities. This is one of the reasons why it seems ridiculous for Mormons to claim they are “Christians.” Because Jesus said things like “love thy neighbor” and “love they enemies” and “turn the other cheek” and “judge not lest ye be judged.” He did not instruct his followers to shun anyone, but rather to extend themselves in kindness and generosity to everyone.

I will take the “duh” as a recognition of your own misstatement, but I caution you that it might seem to others that you were trying to project your own mistake on to my statement.

I said duh because you obviously didn’t understand me. Non-believers: People who have been raised as Mormons, but who have lost faith in the dogma of the cult. Mormons are taught to shun any member of their communities who do not promote Mormonism.

The usual term for people who reject their religion is not non-believers, which would include all not of that religion, but apostate.

I used the term ‘non-believer’ because of someone I personally know who was raised Mormon but ended up a “backslider” who was shunned by his family and former friends. That’s how he refers to it: that he is now a non-believer in Mormonism. And btw, this guy is not an atheist or agnostic like myself — he’s more of a highly skeptical Christian who now attends a Unitarian church.

Re women driving the decision - you have no particular reason to applaud or criticize. It is their decision and I (unlike you) give them credit for a reasonable intelligence to make their own decisions.

Oh, there is definitely a reason to criticize a woman who makes the decision to become a Mormon, since that’s guaranteed to be the very last free decision they’ll make. After that, the men are completely in charge within Mormonism, and women are subjects to the mens wishes. Indeed, a woman is considered so inferior in the cult of Mormon that she can’t even get into the “Celestial Kingdom” unless her husband can get her in and she is “sealed to him.” Once there, she might have the grand honor of being eternally pregnant with her man’s “spirit children.”
And, Mormons who die single can only hope to get into the “lower levels” of the Mormon Kingdom. You see, there are “Degrees of Glory” in Mormonism. It’s sort of like a holy department store! There’s The Celestial Kingdom (Top floor, married people only, also three “degrees” within this Kingdom), then The Terrestrial kingdom (lower level heaven), and finally The Telestial Kingdom (“telestial” is one of the made-up gobbledygook words that was coined by Joseph Smith — that’s the lowest level bargain basement where all the bad people go).
Truly, the nuttiness is so vast…

Re religions and clubs - I suppose clubs can fulfill the role. They tend not to.

Clubs don’t tend to fulfill social and economic functions? Since when? At least with a club people aren’t forced to say they believe a lot of BS in order to be a member in good standing.

But again, it is the choice of the people involved and I respect their humanity enough to respect their choices.

Sure, everybody has a choice. But it sounds like what you’re really saying here is that when it comes to religion, you’re willing to respect practically any choice people choose to make. So, if people are going to respect the followers of Joseph Smith, shouldn’t they also automatically respect religious leaders like the Rev. Jim Jones, or Rev. Sun Myung Moon as “prophets” and give utmost respect to their followers decision, too? How about Charles Manson and his followers?

Personally, I happen to think that engaging the brain, and using reason to try to sort coherent philosophy from the total bullsh*t of “religious” charlatans, truly matters. For me to offer respect, that’s not only necessary, but mandatory.

Re - “Don’t try to hang what I’ve written on all Progressives. I’m speaking for myself” I understand very well that you speak only for yourself and other progressives might not want to be associated with your ideas. I would not blame them.

Well, to quote Polonius (Shakespere’s Hamlet, Act I):

This above all: to thine own self be true, And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man. Farewell, my blessing season this in thee!

Adrienne

I think you have explained your position very well and although you do not represent all progressives, I am delighted that you have published all these interesting viewpoints and attitudes for all to see.

I can say with complete sincerity that I hope lots of people read everything you have written here.

Glad to see that you are true to yourself. Quoting Shakespeare is very classy indeed. Of course, you know that sadly benighted conservatives like me thought the quote was from Gilligan’s Island and we thank you for the enlightenment. But speaking of Polonius, didn’t Hamlet refer to him as a “tedious old fool”?

I can say with complete sincerity that I hope lots of people read everything you have written here.

I do too, actually. Because even though the Mormons have attempted to white-wash their outlandish origins and nutty beliefs in order mute public perception and allow them the ability to gain political power, I think Americans do deserve to know at least some of the truth.

As for quoting Hamlet, that’s no big deal, Jack. It’s one of the most quoted pieces of English literature, ever. As for Polonius, he may come off as an old fool, bursting with maxims galore, but the one I quoted happens to be one of his good ones, simply because it’s so obviously true.

Adrienne

Sorry to give you a hard time re Shakespeare. In the case of well-know quotes, you really don’t need to give the whole citation.

I find that when I quote or paraphrase famous people, I get one of three reactions. The educated people know I am quoted. The dumber people think that I have said something really profound and the dumbest people don’t understand much of anything anyway.

You know the joke about Shakespeare, that he is no fun to read because he is so full of cliches. The self-evident truth that applies to today’s politic is in another of his sayings, “Neither a borrower nor a lender be; For loan oft loses both itself and friend,And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry.”

Okay Jack, since you didn’t like how I quoted Shakespere, I’ll just put up a few links to direct quotes from Joseph Smith and Brigham Young that drive both Christians and Non-theists such as myself into either fits of outrage, or gales of helpless laughter:

Quotes from Joseph Smith (the guy who Mormons rank just behind Jesus in religious importance.)
Interesting Quotes from Joseph Smith, the Founder of Mormonism

As a bonus and for another good gasp/laugh there’s this:
Joseph Smith’s Letter Explaining Polygamy
Joe wrote that to a young girl who he obviously had the hots for but who balked at becoming one among the 48 or 49 plural wives he had.

Brigham Young:
Interesting Quotes from Brigham Young, the Second Prophet of the Mormon Church
They save the best (worse) for last on that page, IMO.

And if all that doesn’t manage to get a rise out of you or make you shake your head in appalled disbelief thinking that this is truly what Mitt Romney considers religion (and indeed is a high ranking “elder” with in this “church”!), I’ll tell you something else that is true — and it’s even more side-splittingly hilarious.

The way in which Joseph Smith wrote down the Book of Mormon (he only had the equivalent of a 3rd grade education) was by putting some “seer stones” which he called Urim and Thummim into his hat, whereupon that hat took on magical, occultic abilities. Then, by placing his face into the hat (seriously!!!), he then proceeded to (pretend) to relate what the (alleged) “Reformed Egyptian” hieroglyphs which were upon the (alleged) golden plates (which were no where around) would then appear to him in English on the surface of the magic “seer stones.” And this is how he dictated (made up) everything in that book to one or another of his faithful scribes.

Ha ha ha!!! I’m totally serious here and I kid you not! Joseph Smith was LITERALLY a Mad Hatter!!!
:^)

I’ve told you I think Mormon’s are nuts. I mean that sincerely. I also don’t feel any need to apologize — even if people want to call me a bigot for saying the things that I’ve written here. Because it’s just SO clear that Smith was a complete clown, con man, and all around charlatan that I feel I’m well within my rights as a thinking human being to call the Mormon spade a shovel overflowing with sh*t.

So, it’s really simple. If people think that basic common sense and honesty matters in a president, they really don’t want to vote for Mormons.

Adrienne

I was trying to be nice to you. You do not have to give the full citation when you quote a famous saying in an informal context. Lighten up.

You can find plenty of weird things in any religion or any system of belief in general. Some people take scriptures literally; most do not.

When judging Romney we have forty years of experience in business, government and the non-profit sector. We can see what he has done. You may or may not like that record, but that is a better place to look rather than criticize the details of his inherited religion.

It is one of the rules of evidence. If we know nothing about the individual, we can judge by the group. But as soon as we get better information, we can judge by those actions.

I don’t think it is helping your side when you rant against a religion, worse when you rant against the people who are adherents.

Personally, I am not PC. I believe that we should have the right to ridicule any person or group if we want. But that does not mean that we should. You are angry because you say many Mormons opposed gay rights. What if someone brought up gay organization that advocate “boy love” as an indictment of all gays? You would be justified in complaining that you cannot indict a whole group for the acts of some of them.
‘
My experience with Mormons it that they are honest, hard working, friendly and cooperative. If beliefs like you mention among their ancestors help make them like this, maybe it doesn’t hurt. If we are trading quotes, you may recall what Lincoln said about Grant’s drinking.

Nope, sorry. The GOP doesn’t get away with trying to claim that Mitt Romney’s insular cult doesn’t matter at all — not after all the screeching and screaming they did with Obama and his church and Rev. Wright.
And, not when Romney has been such a high ranking elder in this utterly fraudulent religion that is so strict and unyielding about it’s members behavior and lifestyle, and minding all of their ridiculous “ordinances”, and insisting that all members pay out a tenth of their gross income to the church in order to remain in good standing (and worthy of Celestial Glory).

America should be allowed to probe deeply into the question of exactly what Mitt Romney religiously believes — because Joseph Smith thought that theocratic monarchy was the most desirable form of government, and he’s considered a prophet who they are not allowed to question in any way whatsoever.
Smith also made this statement:

“I will be to this generation a second Mohammed, whose motto in treating for peace was ‘the Alcoran [Koran] or the Sword.’ So shall it eventually be with us.”

That’s not the kind of thinking, or belief system our citizens should want the president of the United States to hold is it?
I personally don’t think so.

So Adrienne hates the Mormons so much that sodomy is more preferred.

Oh, I forgot sodomy is not quite legal or illegal today.

Everybody is a bit quaint with there religion to somebody who does not agree with them.

Fundamental Christianity to Adrienne is wacko. But to me it is what I may believe. So it appears that everybody is wacko who is not a Humanist, Athiest or Agnostic.

How do you prove the validity of being wacko when the individual has a set of values based upon the Holy Scriptures? Just because you say that the Holy Scriptures are something that may not be true, then you claim to be honest and truthful in your perception. There are many “religious” organizations that do not practice the values that I hold so dear. That does not make it right/wrong for me to lambast them. I feel they may be in error for their values or belief system, but where does that elevate me in my thinking. It doesn’t. Nor does it elevete you in your value system.

Maranatha

Tom:

So Adrienne hates the Mormons so much that sodomy is more preferred.

Oh, I forgot sodomy is not quite legal or illegal today.

I don’t hate Mormons. I think their religion is a joke and an obvious fraud, and I hate what they do politically. And yes, I don’t have any problem at all with gay people. I can appreciate the fact that that gay folks wouldn’t dream of treating women as if they are second class citizens, as the majority of Mormons do.

Everybody is a bit quaint with there religion to somebody who does not agree with them.

Huh? I don’t follow. Are you attempting to call Joseph Smith’s clear chicanery and charlatanism “quaint”?
If so, I would have to disagree.

Fundamental Christianity to Adrienne is wacko.

Yup. Same with Fundamentalist Taliban Muslims. I consider fundamental extremism of all stripes (including hard-line atheists) to be weird and dangerous people — because they clearly cannot take a live and let live attitude with others. They want to impose religion by force — which is clearly insanity. There is no way to force people to believe in anything.

But to me it is what I may believe. So it appears that everybody is wacko who is not a Humanist, Athiest or Agnostic.

Nope. I don’t have a problem with people of all different kinds and sorts of religious faiths, or those with out faith. As I just said, the only problem I have is with the religious extremists and hard-line atheists because of their intolerance.

How do you prove the validity of being wacko when the individual has a set of values based upon the Holy Scriptures?

It isn’t, actually. Mormons follow a crazy chaotic mish-mash of nonsense that incorporate some elements of 19th century charismatic Christianity and segments of the bible thrown into the mix. In fact, Joseph Smith said the bible was “incomplete” and ended up having lots of “revelations” that amended the bible all over the place — taking stuff out, adding long passages here and there, elaborating upon sections of it with reams of outlandish crap, etc.
If you read the Joseph Smith and Brigham Young quotes I put up earlier you’re likely to get a clear sense of how they thought the Book of Mormon was far superior to the bible, and actually viewed the bible as a seriously flawed book.

Just because you say that the Holy Scriptures are something that may not be true,

What are you talking about? I’ve said nothing here about your bible. I’ve been talking about the Book of Mormon, which I have read, and which is overflowing with blatantly made up nonsense and utter bullshit. If you want to laugh, you should read it yourself — it’s a real hoot.

then you claim to be honest and truthful in your perception.

I am being 100% sincere, honest, and truthful here. But the only way you’ll understand that I am is if you yourself read the Book of Mormon, and maybe few of the other tracts of the Mormon cult. Totally crazy stuff, but also fascinating. Also, if you want to know more about who Joseph Smith really was, allow me to recommend a book called ‘No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith’ by Fawn M. Brodie. Great book that was written back in the late 1940’s by a Mormon-born woman whose father was a high ranking Mormon insider, and who as a result was given full access to all of the archives. She really tears the veil off of Smith — and the Mormons excommunicated her for it, too.
Anyway, if one studies what the Mormons are and what they teach, I do think you would have to agree with me that Mormon’s don’t have anything at all in common with actual Christian religions.

There are many “religious” organizations that do not practice the values that I hold so dear. That does not make it right/wrong for me to lambast them. I feel they may be in error for their values or belief system, but where does that elevate me in my thinking. It doesn’t. Nor does it elevete you in your value system.

As I said earlier, when I call out Mormonism I don’t feel I’m attacking a true religion, but a cult. The fact that people don’t know very much about the Mormons is the only reason they continue to view it as a “Christian” religion. Once they know more, they’re almost certain to change their mind. I know that I did — completely.

Indeed, I view the cult of Mormon as an entity that absolutely MUST be called out. Because it’s simply so very clear that Joseph Smith was a horrible person — a complete con man, Messianic egomaniac, and charlatan who preyed upon, and took advantage of all of his followers in every way he possibly could — emotionally, intellectually, physically, sexually, and economically.
The fact that the Mormon priesthood has continued to this very day to do so many of the same things that Smith did to his followers is truly despicable.

Adrienne

“I don’t have any problem at all with gay people. I can appreciate the fact that that gay folks wouldn’t dream of treating women as if they are second class citizens, as the majority of Mormons do.”

I have known lots of gay people and talked to them when women were not around. Not exactly how you think they would talk about. As a straight man I actually occasionally took offense at the constant referral of women as a aquatic animal.

You classify people too much into your stereotypes. According to you, being Mormon means being prejudice, but being gay means that you would not dream of disrespecting women. At least some gay people dislike women and at least some Mormons are not prejudiced.

At least some gay people dislike women

Sure, no doubt some do. But then there aren’t gay men organized to raise millions of dollars with goal of trying to take women’s rights away, either.

and at least some Mormons are not prejudiced.

As I said: “as the majority of Mormons do.” And I meant it. Every Mormon is also expected to tithe ten percent of their gross income to the church, which turns around and spends huge amounts of that money on political campaigns and advertising that seeks to deny rights to women and gay people.

Adrienne

“Every Mormon is also expected to tithe ten percent of their gross income to the church, which turns around and spends huge amounts of that money on political campaigns and advertising that seeks to deny rights to women and gay people.”

Does the obverse view make it right or wrong?

I know enough “gay” people to get a small sample of their beliefs and values. Gay people, as a group, want to force their beliefs onto me. They want to force me to accept they life style onto me. They will continue to push, push, push and there will be no end to their push.

In NM a gay couple sued a photographer for not wanting to go into a contract with a “gay” couple to photograph their “wedding”. It went to the NM supreme court and they upheld the plaintiffs case. The defendant said he would not do it on religious grounds. That is absolutely an error. It will go to the Supremes. The point I am trying to make here is that “gay” people are trying to force people who have religious values different from their values into accepting their lifestyle. Of course you will spin that to suit your fancy. Good Luck.

Maranatha

I know enough “gay” people to get a small sample of their beliefs and values.

Somehow, I doubt this.

Gay people, as a group, want to force their beliefs onto me. They want to force me to accept they life style onto me.

Gay beliefs? What beliefs would those be? Please expound on their “beliefs” and what they’re trying to force on you.

Here’s a few questions for you:
Do you think gay Americans have a right to exist alongside of straight Americans?
Or do you think the country should be “separate but equal” segregated into straight-only and gay-only areas — you know, kind of like black people used to be segregated?
Or do you want gay people to be tagged, numbered and herded into pray-away-the-gay camps and kept under strict religious supervision until they can somehow find a way to stop being gay, or at least claim they’re straight?
Or do you perhaps wish gay people were all simply rounded up and shot because they don’t deserve to live?

Or how about this:
Do you believe in the idea that all Americans were created equal and have an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? In other words, do you think gay people in America have a right to expect that the same exact civil and legal rights that apply to you under the law should also apply to them?

They will continue to push, push, push and there will be no end to their push.

You’re right, Gay people will continue to push — for equality and to enjoy the exact same rights that you enjoy. And progressive folks like me will be standing right there alongside of those gay folks, helping them push as hard as I can until this country reaches that goal. Then, and only then, will there be an end to all pushing.

In NM a gay couple sued a photographer for not wanting to go into a contract with a “gay” couple to photograph their “wedding”.

Good — really glad that happened. It puts me in mind of how in Greensboro, North Carolina in February 1960, four young black men sat down at Woolworths lunch counter and ordered some coffee, but they were refused service because it was a “whites only lunch counter” — so the four guys sat there all day until the store closed. The following day, more than twenty black students joined the first four guys and sat in with them all day — they were still refused service. Third day, sixty people showed up — again no service. Fourth day, 300 people showed up! But, no service. Then these protests started spreading all over the southern states! As the protests grew and spread, both black and white college students began boycotting all the stores that had whites only lunch counter policies. When sales plummeted at the Greensboro store by one third, the owners of Woolworths decided to drop their segregation policy at that store — on July 25, 1960 black people were finally served at the Woolworth’s in Greensboro following six full months of continuous protests. The day after that, the entire Woolworth’s chain in the United States decided to change their policy — and that very day began serving every color of American person at their lunch counters! Hurray for Equality! Down with Segregation!

It went to the NM supreme court and they upheld the plaintiffs case.

Good! And sure — because the photographer had let them know that they were being discriminated against due to their sexual orientation.

The defendant said he would not do it on religious grounds.

In other words, the defendant decided he wanted to make a political statement on religious grounds by claiming he had a right to discriminate against those people — and told them so directly. Had he wished to not to offend them and wanted to avoid a confrontation entirely, he could have told them he would be photographing someone else that day. But instead, he wanted to let them know that he hated and disapproved of their gayness and that’s why they were being discriminated against — and thus he lost his case.

That is absolutely an error.

Discrimination is absolutely an error.

It will go to the Supremes.

I hope they will not uphold the idea of discrimination on religious grounds as valid.

The point I am trying to make here is that “gay” people are trying to force people who have religious values different from their values into accepting their lifestyle.

So, I guess what you’re really saying is that Americans should no longer consider it a self-evident truth that all are equal. I disagree completely.

Of course you will spin that to suit your fancy.

Oh, and you’re not spinning, right? Sure. That’s why you think that gay people’s very existence poses a challenge to religious people’s values and sense of superiority, simply because gay folks have the nerve to walk into their business and inquire about hiring them for their services.

Just like black people’s very existence once posed a challenge to racist people’s values and sense of superiority, simply because black folks had the nerve to sit down at a lunch counter and order a cup of coffee.

Adrienne

“Here’s a few questions for you:
Do you think gay Americans have a right to exist alongside of straight Americans?
Or do you think the country should be “separate but equal” segregated into straight-only and gay-only areas — you know, kind of like black people used to be segregated?
Or do you want gay people to be tagged, numbered and herded into pray-away-the-gay camps and kept under strict religious supervision until they can somehow find a way to stop being gay, or at least claim they’re straight?
Or do you perhaps wish gay people were all simply rounded up and shot because they don’t deserve to live?

Or how about this:
Do you believe in the idea that all Americans were created equal and have an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? In other words, do you think gay people in America have a right to expect that the same exact civil and legal rights that apply to you under the law should also apply to them?

On the first paragraph, No
On the second paragraph. Yes. Marriage is not a civil right.

As I said you will spin, spin spin.

Maranatha

On the first paragraph, No

So, you don’t think gay Americans have a right to exist alongside of straight Americans? What do you want to do about that?

On the second paragraph. Yes. Marriage is not a civil right. As I said you will spin, spin spin.

Wrong. Marriage is a civil right. Spin?
No need:

Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Marriage is a legal arrangement and because it is, a person cannot be denied equal protection of the law.

Regarding marriage, this was ruled upon by the Supreme Court in the case Loving v. Virginia. They struck down the Virginia law that had placed a ban on interracial marriage.

Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote the majority opinion. Here’s the pertinent bit:

To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

The Court hasn’t made a ruling on same-sex marriage at present, but it seems extremely unlikely that they will now suddenly choose to overturn the court’s prior ruling and the existing premise that marriage is in fact considered a civil right in America.

Re gay marriage - We should encourage gay marriage. It will help settle down some of that destructive lifestyle that young men (straight also) engage in. If a large number of gay men were married and reasonably faithful to their spouses, the AIDS problem would be greatly diminished. Like other married people, gay couples would become increasingly conservative, with healthier lifestyles. And beyond all that, many gay couples are two-wage earners and rich. Why not get them to pay that marriage penalty tax that others of us do?

IMO - this whole issue we be gone in a few years. Some gays, in fact, will be agitating for change back. Consider this. Today gays in many organizations can get partner benefits w/o the responsibility and duties of marriage. They can avoid that marriage penalty and they can live life more or less as single men but with benefit. Marriage will require actual responsibility. Firms will be free to cut benefits to unmarried partners, since they can credibly argue that marriage is an option so just do it.

I also think divorce lawyers will benefit, especially among gay men. Men in general are more wayward in their sexual habits than women. Imagine two men.

The only reason I am for “gay marriage” is that without procreation the democratic party will not have as many followers and membership will be drained. That would be beneficial.

Maranatha

tom

Gay marriage is good social policy, whether or not people it for other reasons.

Gay marriage is good social policy

Equality and justice is always good social policy.

Adrienne

The problem comes in defining what we mean by equality and justice. Anyway, equality is not always a good policy. It often conflicts with excellence and we need to balance the two good things. That is why I tend to value freedom and lots of choices. Diversity is often better than equality.

In the case of gay marriage, however, it makes sense, but for the practical reasons I mentioned above.

If youve chosen your angel or fairy fancy dress costume, the next task is to choose coast fashion which accessories you will coast wedding dresses be putting on Dress coast clothing Up Your Virtual Imagegoogletag Those pitting their fancy dress costumes against one another had coast sale to impress judge on the coast dresses for saleday mayor Linda Silver Go for a white twinkling eye shade coast dresses to fit your ensemble, or soft-sheen silvers and golds

If youve opted for a coast dresses sale extraordinary outfit, like a woodland costume with brilliantly colored, stripey leggings, wear bolder eye shades in browns, greens or orangescmd Youll only end coast maxi dress up rushing and grabbing the last outfit in the shop, whether its appropriate coast dresses uk and on theme or not Online retailers have got superb hairpieces, theatrical make up and toe nail polish to finish your coast stores dress-up costume Your hairstyle is coast dress uk just as essential as your fancy dress costume jksdiejlkawlg

If youve chosen your angel or fairy fancy dress costume, the next task is to choose coast fashion which accessories you will coast wedding dresses be putting on Dress coast clothing Up Your Virtual Imagegoogletag Those pitting their fancy dress costumes against one another had coast sale to impress judge on the coast dresses for saleday mayor Linda Silver Go for a white twinkling eye shade coast dresses to fit your ensemble, or soft-sheen silvers and golds

If youve opted for a coast dresses sale extraordinary outfit, like a woodland costume with brilliantly colored, stripey leggings, wear bolder eye shades in browns, greens or orangescmd Youll only end coast maxi dress up rushing and grabbing the last outfit in the shop, whether its appropriate coast dresses uk and on theme or not Online retailers have got superb hairpieces, theatrical make up and toe nail polish to finish your coast stores dress-up costume Your hairstyle is coast dress uk just as essential as your fancy dress costume jksdiejlkawlg

Mix and match anything that you find in the closet until you made up your mind If coast dress uk you have decided to wear a mermaid wedding dress you need to keep in mind that the undergarments you choose must be considered very carefullyConvex body is the hearts of all women are thinking, the wedding day of course want to express themselves in the best condition, pick a set belongs to you, the most suitable for your wedding, to show you the exquisite curve of itDress coast wedding dressesup Games sounds a blessing word for those who are interested in dressing to all sorts of people,locals,dolls coast maxi dress especially coast stores barbies and so on

Select a coast sale beautiful dress from the coast dresses virtual closet and match it with the suitable and chic pair of shoes In some coast dresses saleversions, you could earn credits and bonus points whenever a level is completed8 It coast dresses for sale is like playing with a Barbie doll

li@yumei6_15wa_lian coast fashion

Louis Vuitton Tassen
Louis Vuitton
doudoune moncler
christian louboutian
Louis Vuitton Tassen
Moncler Jacken
Louis Vuitton Online shop
louis vuitton online shop

The popularity of the pandora beads and also bracelets is you are able to style them in any manner pandora charms you would like. Make ten people develop their own own Pandora bracelets and you’ll have 10 special styles. Have the same folks work with this the following pandora jewelry day and you may possess ten much pandora bracelets more distinctive designs. With the Pandora beads and also bracelets, you can produce your very own special piece of jewelry.