|
|
On April 21 2012 23:53 Drakon wrote:I vote Dr. Ron Paul, im suprised with us all on the internet it should be really easy for everyone to do a lil research and see that he is the best candidate. Oh yeah, and get off some of those mainstream websites  you might have heard of the black out of ron paul. plus he has some of the most amazing youtube vids lol. www.dailypaul.com
agreed
Ron Paul 2012, the only reasonable option
|
On April 22 2012 00:33 Zoesan wrote:
@xDaunt: I regard most people that firmly believe in something with no scientific evidence at all to be somewhat questionable.
That's fine if that is what you believe. I was just under the impression that TL and its mods are better than what that comment represents.
|
And yes i will vote for him. I can write whatever the hell i want to on the ballot, aint fuckin obama gonna stop this
|
On April 22 2012 00:30 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2012 16:43 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On April 21 2012 16:40 Vessel wrote:On April 21 2012 11:50 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On April 21 2012 11:40 CajunMan wrote:On April 21 2012 11:03 Silidons wrote:
For me, the second an Atheist person runs for President they will likely insta-get my vote. Kind of shitty having 0% representation in gov't. The problem with that is only about 8% of the US don't believe in a god of some kid and even more believe in other stuff (voodoo, etc) So really your stuck in the same boat as a lot of people I wish there was a viable Libertarian and fiscal conservative but it ain't gonna happen. I'm trying to find the article that was posted a couple of days ago about Atheism is risisng in the U.S. faster than those being converted. This group, sometimes collectively labeled the "Nones," is growing faster than any religious faith in the U.S. About two thirds of Nones say they are former believers; 24 percent are lapsed Catholics and 29 percent once identified with other Christian denominations. If growth continues at the current rate, one in four Americans will profess no religious faith within 20 years. Silverman hopes that as nonbelief spreads, atheists can become a "legitimate political segment of the American population," afforded the same protections as religious groups and ethnic minorities. But he's not advocating a complete secular takeover of the U.S. — nor would he be likely to achieve one, given the abiding religious faith of most Americans. SourceEDIT: Found it. Someone please correct me if I am wrong because it is late, but isn't one of the indicators that the end of the world is imminent when a non-believer is elected into office? Seems like the religious right is already armed against an atheist president if their holy book tells them that it will signal the end of the world. I may be wrong, it is late and I am tired. I would think that if an Atheist President was elected the majority of the country would be secular, nonbeliever etc. and rightfully view those that aren't as nut jobs. So everyone who is religious is a nutjob? Nice.
I was under the impression you could be secular (separation of church and state) while being religious personally. That's debatable, but you should agree the person you quoted could believe this.
|
On April 22 2012 00:48 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2012 00:30 xDaunt wrote:On April 21 2012 16:43 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On April 21 2012 16:40 Vessel wrote:On April 21 2012 11:50 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On April 21 2012 11:40 CajunMan wrote:On April 21 2012 11:03 Silidons wrote:
For me, the second an Atheist person runs for President they will likely insta-get my vote. Kind of shitty having 0% representation in gov't. The problem with that is only about 8% of the US don't believe in a god of some kid and even more believe in other stuff (voodoo, etc) So really your stuck in the same boat as a lot of people I wish there was a viable Libertarian and fiscal conservative but it ain't gonna happen. I'm trying to find the article that was posted a couple of days ago about Atheism is risisng in the U.S. faster than those being converted. This group, sometimes collectively labeled the "Nones," is growing faster than any religious faith in the U.S. About two thirds of Nones say they are former believers; 24 percent are lapsed Catholics and 29 percent once identified with other Christian denominations. If growth continues at the current rate, one in four Americans will profess no religious faith within 20 years. Silverman hopes that as nonbelief spreads, atheists can become a "legitimate political segment of the American population," afforded the same protections as religious groups and ethnic minorities. But he's not advocating a complete secular takeover of the U.S. — nor would he be likely to achieve one, given the abiding religious faith of most Americans. SourceEDIT: Found it. Someone please correct me if I am wrong because it is late, but isn't one of the indicators that the end of the world is imminent when a non-believer is elected into office? Seems like the religious right is already armed against an atheist president if their holy book tells them that it will signal the end of the world. I may be wrong, it is late and I am tired. I would think that if an Atheist President was elected the majority of the country would be secular, nonbeliever etc. and rightfully view those that aren't as nut jobs. So everyone who is religious is a nutjob? Nice. I was under the impression you could be secular (separation of church and state) while being religious personally. That's debatable, but you should agree the person you quoted could believe this.
No, he clearly doesn't because he also included the word "nonbeliever."
It is bigotry on parade.
|
On April 22 2012 00:36 storkfan wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2012 23:53 Drakon wrote:I vote Dr. Ron Paul, im suprised with us all on the internet it should be really easy for everyone to do a lil research and see that he is the best candidate. Oh yeah, and get off some of those mainstream websites you might have heard of the black out of ron paul. plus he has some of the most amazing youtube vids lol. www.dailypaul.com agreed Ron Paul 2012, the only reasonable option
Lol this blind ron paul love makes me head hurt. Ron Paul is about 50% reasonable and the other 50 insane. He's way too utopian, and unfortunately his econ policies would be detrimental to almost all americans.
|
If you are a Protestant and you follow Luther over Calvin, and you actually have any sense of Luther's thoughts and writings, then you would be a Christian secularist. Modern Western secularism has its roots in the Protestant Reformation with Luther anyway.
|
On April 22 2012 00:51 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2012 00:48 Roe wrote:On April 22 2012 00:30 xDaunt wrote:On April 21 2012 16:43 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On April 21 2012 16:40 Vessel wrote:On April 21 2012 11:50 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On April 21 2012 11:40 CajunMan wrote:On April 21 2012 11:03 Silidons wrote:
For me, the second an Atheist person runs for President they will likely insta-get my vote. Kind of shitty having 0% representation in gov't. The problem with that is only about 8% of the US don't believe in a god of some kid and even more believe in other stuff (voodoo, etc) So really your stuck in the same boat as a lot of people I wish there was a viable Libertarian and fiscal conservative but it ain't gonna happen. I'm trying to find the article that was posted a couple of days ago about Atheism is risisng in the U.S. faster than those being converted. This group, sometimes collectively labeled the "Nones," is growing faster than any religious faith in the U.S. About two thirds of Nones say they are former believers; 24 percent are lapsed Catholics and 29 percent once identified with other Christian denominations. If growth continues at the current rate, one in four Americans will profess no religious faith within 20 years. Silverman hopes that as nonbelief spreads, atheists can become a "legitimate political segment of the American population," afforded the same protections as religious groups and ethnic minorities. But he's not advocating a complete secular takeover of the U.S. — nor would he be likely to achieve one, given the abiding religious faith of most Americans. SourceEDIT: Found it. Someone please correct me if I am wrong because it is late, but isn't one of the indicators that the end of the world is imminent when a non-believer is elected into office? Seems like the religious right is already armed against an atheist president if their holy book tells them that it will signal the end of the world. I may be wrong, it is late and I am tired. I would think that if an Atheist President was elected the majority of the country would be secular, nonbeliever etc. and rightfully view those that aren't as nut jobs. So everyone who is religious is a nutjob? Nice. I was under the impression you could be secular (separation of church and state) while being religious personally. That's debatable, but you should agree the person you quoted could believe this. No, he clearly doesn't because he also included the word "nonbeliever." It is bigotry on parade.
It's your own bias on parade.
He said people who aren't secularists, nonbelievers etc. are nut jobs. I'm sure you can understand the logical implication of that sentence being "secularists or nonbelievers or...etc."
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 21 2012 23:29 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2012 21:05 oneofthem wrote:On April 21 2012 17:26 Zoesan wrote:On April 21 2012 07:52 Voltaire wrote:On April 20 2012 20:34 Papulatus wrote:On April 20 2012 18:54 Voltaire wrote:On April 20 2012 18:47 Velr wrote:On April 20 2012 15:02 Rossen wrote:Wait why is everyone who isent from America wanting Obama to win ? Cant handle someone who isent a socialist ? omg.  . I know he will win, but I'd still vote for Romney if I could. (We dont need american to become as socialistic as EU.) T_T Every 7th american gets food stamps allready... So as it seems theire actually quite socialist  .. But don't tell em, else they might stop lieing to themselevs and start to restructure their welfare system.... ... ... . I'm jealous of you. In my opinion, Switzerland is the best country in Europe. No EU, high standard of living, democracy, freedom, neutrality, etc. I think the US government should definitely try to learn from Switzerland. If you were to take a moment to compare the size and scope of the United States to Switzerland, you would realize just how absurd this statement is. I'm aware of the vast difference in territory. I still think my statement stands, though. I never said the US should copy everything Switzerland does, just that it could learn a few things. Especially things like neutrality. With this I agree wholeheartedly. For some strange reason, the swiss system works really well; and while the point in difference of size is still true, I don't advocate copying everything. Maybe just having more than 2 relevant parties (switzerland has, I believe, 8 relevant parties in the equivalent of the house of representatives) On April 21 2012 08:02 Papulatus wrote:On April 21 2012 07:45 Zoesan wrote:
I could never vote for someone batshit crazy enough to be a mormon. If you're that dumb, you sure as hell aren't fit to run a country. And yet I'm sure you advocate not judging minorities. Anyone who is dumb enough to form an opinion based on someones personal beliefs is sure as hell not fit to post in this thread. Really am I? Ok, the way I put it was unsensitive, but have you ever read what mormons believe? I don't mind mild religiosity, or not much, but mormonism is more of a sect than anything else. And yes I do judge on personal beliefs, because often they are, to a certain extent, highly relevant to a persons personality. Could you vote for an islamic extremist? I couldn't. I get the belief, that there's "something there", but the belief in a god that actually has influence on the world or the belief in a ancient book (and the book of mormon) for me is a dealbreaker, because it makes me seriously doubt that persons ability to think logically. romney doesn't believe in mormonism. if you take away anything from the mormon idea it is that he is bound by clan/social loyalties, whcih is what holds mormonism togehter. 1- He was a bishop for several years, which means he presides and is the religious authority figure for about 3-400 people for that time. 2- As a practicing mormon, he has paid tithing (10% of his gross income) to the church for his entire life. 3- He, his wife, and his children were all baptized in the church. 4- If you're going to say something stupid like 'he doesn't believe in mormonism' please back it up with some sort of evidence.
all of that are trappings of mormonism. incidentally, doing all of that is in keeping with the image of a good mormon which is all that matters in an enclave like that.
i am not offering some sort of proof here, just the distinct possibility that his mormon activities' are not motivated by actually believing in the doctrines and assertions of mormonism.
being a pastor does not mean one believes in the religion.
|
If he didn't believe but wanted to stay in the community he could have just gone to mass, paid some cash. But he did become a pastor, which, to me, says enough.
|
On April 22 2012 01:06 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2012 23:29 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On April 21 2012 21:05 oneofthem wrote:On April 21 2012 17:26 Zoesan wrote:On April 21 2012 07:52 Voltaire wrote:On April 20 2012 20:34 Papulatus wrote:On April 20 2012 18:54 Voltaire wrote:On April 20 2012 18:47 Velr wrote:On April 20 2012 15:02 Rossen wrote:Wait why is everyone who isent from America wanting Obama to win ? Cant handle someone who isent a socialist ? omg. . I know he will win, but I'd still vote for Romney if I could. (We dont need american to become as socialistic as EU.) T_T Every 7th american gets food stamps allready... So as it seems theire actually quite socialist .. But don't tell em, else they might stop lieing to themselevs and start to restructure their welfare system.... ... ... . I'm jealous of you. In my opinion, Switzerland is the best country in Europe. No EU, high standard of living, democracy, freedom, neutrality, etc. I think the US government should definitely try to learn from Switzerland. If you were to take a moment to compare the size and scope of the United States to Switzerland, you would realize just how absurd this statement is. I'm aware of the vast difference in territory. I still think my statement stands, though. I never said the US should copy everything Switzerland does, just that it could learn a few things. Especially things like neutrality. With this I agree wholeheartedly. For some strange reason, the swiss system works really well; and while the point in difference of size is still true, I don't advocate copying everything. Maybe just having more than 2 relevant parties (switzerland has, I believe, 8 relevant parties in the equivalent of the house of representatives) On April 21 2012 08:02 Papulatus wrote:On April 21 2012 07:45 Zoesan wrote:
I could never vote for someone batshit crazy enough to be a mormon. If you're that dumb, you sure as hell aren't fit to run a country. And yet I'm sure you advocate not judging minorities. Anyone who is dumb enough to form an opinion based on someones personal beliefs is sure as hell not fit to post in this thread. Really am I? Ok, the way I put it was unsensitive, but have you ever read what mormons believe? I don't mind mild religiosity, or not much, but mormonism is more of a sect than anything else. And yes I do judge on personal beliefs, because often they are, to a certain extent, highly relevant to a persons personality. Could you vote for an islamic extremist? I couldn't. I get the belief, that there's "something there", but the belief in a god that actually has influence on the world or the belief in a ancient book (and the book of mormon) for me is a dealbreaker, because it makes me seriously doubt that persons ability to think logically. romney doesn't believe in mormonism. if you take away anything from the mormon idea it is that he is bound by clan/social loyalties, whcih is what holds mormonism togehter. 1- He was a bishop for several years, which means he presides and is the religious authority figure for about 3-400 people for that time. 2- As a practicing mormon, he has paid tithing (10% of his gross income) to the church for his entire life. 3- He, his wife, and his children were all baptized in the church. 4- If you're going to say something stupid like 'he doesn't believe in mormonism' please back it up with some sort of evidence. all of that are trappings of mormonism. incidentally, doing all of that is in keeping with the image of a good mormon which is all that matters in an enclave like that. i am not offering some sort of proof here, just the distinct possibility that his mormon activities' are not motivated by actually believing in the doctrines and assertions of mormonism. being a pastor does not mean one believes in the religion.
Most active LDS members, and 100% of LDS bishops, have a temple recommend which allows them to enter LDS temples. In order to get the recommend, you are interviewed by one or more LDS elders, who ask you specific questions, and essentially politely interrogate you to determine if you are truly faithful. They ask you questions about specific aspects of the religion.I've been interviewed like this several times.
There's also testimony bearing (baring?). Again, almost every active member, and certainly the bishop, on a designated sunday each month, will speak about their belief in specific aspects of the church.
I don't believe anyone could do these things, along with the things I mentioned earlier (tithing, baptism) without actually having faith.
|
I really have no opinions on Romney's "real" beliefs but a "nonbeliever" becoming a clergyman isn't as uncommon as people seem to think. In Romney's case it would surprise me even less because of his family's standings within the Mormon church.
I don't believe anyone could do these things, along with the things I mentioned earlier (tithing, baptism) without actually having faith.
We are still talking about politicians, right?
|
On April 22 2012 01:02 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2012 00:51 xDaunt wrote:On April 22 2012 00:48 Roe wrote:On April 22 2012 00:30 xDaunt wrote:On April 21 2012 16:43 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On April 21 2012 16:40 Vessel wrote:On April 21 2012 11:50 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On April 21 2012 11:40 CajunMan wrote:On April 21 2012 11:03 Silidons wrote:
For me, the second an Atheist person runs for President they will likely insta-get my vote. Kind of shitty having 0% representation in gov't. The problem with that is only about 8% of the US don't believe in a god of some kid and even more believe in other stuff (voodoo, etc) So really your stuck in the same boat as a lot of people I wish there was a viable Libertarian and fiscal conservative but it ain't gonna happen. I'm trying to find the article that was posted a couple of days ago about Atheism is risisng in the U.S. faster than those being converted. This group, sometimes collectively labeled the "Nones," is growing faster than any religious faith in the U.S. About two thirds of Nones say they are former believers; 24 percent are lapsed Catholics and 29 percent once identified with other Christian denominations. If growth continues at the current rate, one in four Americans will profess no religious faith within 20 years. Silverman hopes that as nonbelief spreads, atheists can become a "legitimate political segment of the American population," afforded the same protections as religious groups and ethnic minorities. But he's not advocating a complete secular takeover of the U.S. — nor would he be likely to achieve one, given the abiding religious faith of most Americans. SourceEDIT: Found it. Someone please correct me if I am wrong because it is late, but isn't one of the indicators that the end of the world is imminent when a non-believer is elected into office? Seems like the religious right is already armed against an atheist president if their holy book tells them that it will signal the end of the world. I may be wrong, it is late and I am tired. I would think that if an Atheist President was elected the majority of the country would be secular, nonbeliever etc. and rightfully view those that aren't as nut jobs. So everyone who is religious is a nutjob? Nice. I was under the impression you could be secular (separation of church and state) while being religious personally. That's debatable, but you should agree the person you quoted could believe this. No, he clearly doesn't because he also included the word "nonbeliever." It is bigotry on parade. It's your own bias on parade. He said people who aren't secularists, nonbelievers etc. are nut jobs. I'm sure you can understand the logical implication of that sentence being "secularists or nonbelievers or...etc."
My bias on parade? This coming from a guy who won't even accurately state what was said despite it being in writing? First, you omit the term "nonbeliever." Now you are rewriting what he said by inserting "or's" where there were none before. What you're doing goes well-beyond mere spin and interpretation at this point. It's outright misrepresentation.
|
On April 22 2012 00:57 darthfoley wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2012 00:36 storkfan wrote:On April 21 2012 23:53 Drakon wrote:I vote Dr. Ron Paul, im suprised with us all on the internet it should be really easy for everyone to do a lil research and see that he is the best candidate. Oh yeah, and get off some of those mainstream websites you might have heard of the black out of ron paul. plus he has some of the most amazing youtube vids lol. www.dailypaul.com agreed Ron Paul 2012, the only reasonable option Lol this blind ron paul love makes me head hurt. Ron Paul is about 50% reasonable and the other 50 insane. He's way too utopian, and unfortunately his econ policies would be detrimental to almost all americans.
His economic policies are no more insane than having this theory that the federal reserve printing our way out of bankruptcy is gonna happen. You can't stop inflation with more inflation. Can't you see that we are in more debt then ever before? What we have now is a failed policy and it needs to be looked at and changed.
|
On April 22 2012 01:20 koreasilver wrote:I really have no opinions on Romney's "real" beliefs but a "nonbeliever" becoming a clergyman isn't as uncommon as people seem to think. In Romney's case it would surprise me even less because of his family's standings within the Mormon church. Show nested quote +I don't believe anyone could do these things, along with the things I mentioned earlier (tithing, baptism) without actually having faith. We are still talking about politicians, right?
In the LDS church, a 'nonbeliever' becoming a bishop is unheard of. Period. It can't happen unless you've been ordained with the melchezedek priesthood, which you get several years after getting the Aaronic priesthood. You can't be in that position without being an active and faithful member for decades.
Yes, we are still talking about politicians. If you read back the last 2-3 or pages, you'll see that myself and others are concerned about having the country run by somebody who we feel has a fragile grip on reality.
|
On April 22 2012 01:22 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2012 01:02 Roe wrote:On April 22 2012 00:51 xDaunt wrote:On April 22 2012 00:48 Roe wrote:On April 22 2012 00:30 xDaunt wrote:On April 21 2012 16:43 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On April 21 2012 16:40 Vessel wrote:On April 21 2012 11:50 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On April 21 2012 11:40 CajunMan wrote:On April 21 2012 11:03 Silidons wrote:
For me, the second an Atheist person runs for President they will likely insta-get my vote. Kind of shitty having 0% representation in gov't. The problem with that is only about 8% of the US don't believe in a god of some kid and even more believe in other stuff (voodoo, etc) So really your stuck in the same boat as a lot of people I wish there was a viable Libertarian and fiscal conservative but it ain't gonna happen. I'm trying to find the article that was posted a couple of days ago about Atheism is risisng in the U.S. faster than those being converted. This group, sometimes collectively labeled the "Nones," is growing faster than any religious faith in the U.S. About two thirds of Nones say they are former believers; 24 percent are lapsed Catholics and 29 percent once identified with other Christian denominations. If growth continues at the current rate, one in four Americans will profess no religious faith within 20 years. Silverman hopes that as nonbelief spreads, atheists can become a "legitimate political segment of the American population," afforded the same protections as religious groups and ethnic minorities. But he's not advocating a complete secular takeover of the U.S. — nor would he be likely to achieve one, given the abiding religious faith of most Americans. SourceEDIT: Found it. Someone please correct me if I am wrong because it is late, but isn't one of the indicators that the end of the world is imminent when a non-believer is elected into office? Seems like the religious right is already armed against an atheist president if their holy book tells them that it will signal the end of the world. I may be wrong, it is late and I am tired. I would think that if an Atheist President was elected the majority of the country would be secular, nonbeliever etc. and rightfully view those that aren't as nut jobs. So everyone who is religious is a nutjob? Nice. I was under the impression you could be secular (separation of church and state) while being religious personally. That's debatable, but you should agree the person you quoted could believe this. No, he clearly doesn't because he also included the word "nonbeliever." It is bigotry on parade. It's your own bias on parade. He said people who aren't secularists, nonbelievers etc. are nut jobs. I'm sure you can understand the logical implication of that sentence being "secularists or nonbelievers or...etc." My bias on parade? This coming from a guy who won't even accurately state what was said despite it being in writing? First, you omit the term "nonbeliever." Now you are rewriting what he said by inserting "or's" where there were none before. What you're doing goes well-beyond mere spin and interpretation at this point. It's outright misrepresentation.
I was under the impression you were talking only about the secular part because I didn't think anyone could make a mistake like you did, but I guess I was wrong. If you understand any bit of logic you should know why I put the "or" in there. And really, enough of this xDaunt. You try your hardest to spin things to a conservative bias but end up nothing more than a fool.
|
On April 22 2012 01:27 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2012 01:20 koreasilver wrote:I really have no opinions on Romney's "real" beliefs but a "nonbeliever" becoming a clergyman isn't as uncommon as people seem to think. In Romney's case it would surprise me even less because of his family's standings within the Mormon church. I don't believe anyone could do these things, along with the things I mentioned earlier (tithing, baptism) without actually having faith. We are still talking about politicians, right? In the LDS church, a 'nonbeliever' becoming a bishop is unheard of. Period. It can't happen unless you've been ordained with the melchezedek priesthood, which you get several years after getting the Aaronic priesthood. You can't be in that position without being an active and faithful member for decades. Yes, we are still talking about politicians. If you read back the last 2-3 or pages, you'll see that myself and others are concerned about having the country run by somebody who we feel has a fragile grip on reality.
Have you seen any of Romney's policies or his programs? None of them are Mormonized or anything like that. If you want to use Mormonism as an excuse not to vote for him, you need to provide some substanial reasoning; because "he's a Mormon" just makes you sound like some evangelical redneck.
|
On April 22 2012 01:31 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2012 01:27 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On April 22 2012 01:20 koreasilver wrote:I really have no opinions on Romney's "real" beliefs but a "nonbeliever" becoming a clergyman isn't as uncommon as people seem to think. In Romney's case it would surprise me even less because of his family's standings within the Mormon church. I don't believe anyone could do these things, along with the things I mentioned earlier (tithing, baptism) without actually having faith. We are still talking about politicians, right? In the LDS church, a 'nonbeliever' becoming a bishop is unheard of. Period. It can't happen unless you've been ordained with the melchezedek priesthood, which you get several years after getting the Aaronic priesthood. You can't be in that position without being an active and faithful member for decades. Yes, we are still talking about politicians. If you read back the last 2-3 or pages, you'll see that myself and others are concerned about having the country run by somebody who we feel has a fragile grip on reality. Have you seen any of Romney's policies or his programs? None of them are Mormonized or anything like that. If you want to use Mormonism as an excuse not to vote for him, you need to provide some substanial reasoning; because "he's a Mormon" just makes you sound like some evangelical redneck.
The mormon church is homophobic, sexist, and racist. I believe Romney will carry these traits to the presidency.
Homophobia - The LDS church donates millions in support of California's prop 8, an anti-gay marriage bill.
Sexist - Women cannot hold the priesthood, or any position of authority in the church. The church embraced polygamy until it became clear that they could not achieve statehood, at which time the prophet had a revelation that God told him that polygamy was now bad. Joseph Smith, the church's founder, married one of his wives when she was 13.
Racism - Blacks could not hold the priesthood until 1978, which also meant they couldn't be married and sealed in the temple, or ever go to the highest kingdom of heaven with the other mormons.
I don't like homophobic, racist, and sexist people. I don't want one of them as our president. Mormonism is a big deal.
|
Okay, I can almost guarantee that I will be "warned" for this post. But let's look at something very interesting here.
A poster, on the front page, wrote the following:
"Dear America,
Vote Obama
Sincerely,
Rest of the fucking world."
Which is supposedly entirely acceptable among the guidelines on the first page.
First, let's review the first page guidelines.
1) Civility, please.
2) Keep the hyperbole to a dull roar.
3) Keep the thread on topic. This is about Obama vs Romney in the US Presidential Election. Please avoid talking about people who will not be on the ballot in November. Talk about these people elsewhere.
4) Fact check.
First of all, nobody is sure who will "be on the ballot in November"
So let's do some "Fact checks"
There's going to be a brokered convention. Romney does not have enough delegates to claim he's the running candidate for Republican office. Fact. Therefore, we cannot be sure who will be on the ballot in November. *I* could be on the ballot come November. Therefore, talking about guys like Ron Paul, is talking about someone who may potentially be on the ballot *just like Romney* and is very much in the debate of Obama vs Romney. In fact, a lot of Romney's potential votes come from people who support Ron Paul, just like a lot of Obama's potential votes come from people who support Ron Paul.
The point is, it's ignorant to allow posts like "Vote Obama, Sincerely, Rest of the fucking world"
and then "warn" people who post, and I quote:
pntcrzy United States. April 21 2012 08:20. Posts 3 PM Profile Quote #
Ron Paul
User was warned for this post
Also, since we're on the subject of ignorance, let's look at someone who was temped banned for saying quote:
MCMXVI April 21 2012 07:41. Posts 1027 PM Profile Quote #
A vote for Obama is a vote for Goldman Sachs. Great way to waste your vote!
User was temp banned for this post.
Let's go back to your own guidelines, modbots:
1) Civility, please. (More civil then "sincerely, rest of the fucking world")
2) Keep the hyperbole to a dull roar. (ok - "rest of the fucking world" isn't a hyperbole, I guess /s)
3) Keep the thread on topic. This is about Obama vs Romney in the US Presidential Election. Please avoid talking about people who will not be on the ballot in November. Talk about these people elsewhere. (is about Obama)
4) Fact check. (It's a fact)
Obama's biggest campaign contributors:
1. University of California $1,648,685
2. Goldman Sachs $1,013,091
3. Harvard University $878,164
How's that for some fact checking.
I can do this all day. Seriously. I won't though. Probably because I'll be temp banned. Work your magic bots. I'm being civil, not using hyperbole's, talking about Obama vs Romney, and checking my facts. I'll be waiting.
User was temp banned for this post.
1) Don't martyr. It's an auto ban.
2) Use website feedback to discuss moderating issues
|
On April 22 2012 01:31 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2012 01:27 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On April 22 2012 01:20 koreasilver wrote:I really have no opinions on Romney's "real" beliefs but a "nonbeliever" becoming a clergyman isn't as uncommon as people seem to think. In Romney's case it would surprise me even less because of his family's standings within the Mormon church. I don't believe anyone could do these things, along with the things I mentioned earlier (tithing, baptism) without actually having faith. We are still talking about politicians, right? In the LDS church, a 'nonbeliever' becoming a bishop is unheard of. Period. It can't happen unless you've been ordained with the melchezedek priesthood, which you get several years after getting the Aaronic priesthood. You can't be in that position without being an active and faithful member for decades. Yes, we are still talking about politicians. If you read back the last 2-3 or pages, you'll see that myself and others are concerned about having the country run by somebody who we feel has a fragile grip on reality. Have you seen any of Romney's policies or his programs? None of them are Mormonized or anything like that. If you want to use Mormonism as an excuse not to vote for him, you need to provide some substanial reasoning; because "he's a Mormon" just makes you sound like some evangelical redneck.
No, I just think that anyone faithful to mormonism has serious problems making logical decisions and seriously impaired judgment. Thus I don't want that person to become the most powerful man in the world.
Make sense now?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
