EC-Bills Posted February 13, 2010 Posted February 13, 2010 And that's why he'll never make it past the primaries. The left already spends a bunch of time mocking Christians. Throw in some bigamy and caffeine misconceptions, and he's sunk before the boat even gets wet. The left would be mocking his religion so badly, it would make it look like they treated Palin with a featherduster. I suggest you may want to re-evaluate which side would have the biggest problem with Mitt. Sure the left will have its share of douches (that's pretty much an equivalent to a given in a geometric proof), but they don't compare to the religious infighting that goes on with the right. I remember from the last election cycle that the republicans candidates were at a some family values conference (I don't remember which one specifically other than there was a lot of hubdub about it because of Gulianni's moderate views). While the folks liked what Mitt had to say, they also stated one of their major concerns was that he was a Mormon. All of which prompted Mitch to give a speech defending his beliefs. The lack of religious tolerance in America is astounding to me. I agree. Unfortunately that is what you get when some people base so much of who they are in one belief that there is no way they can reconcile that someone has a different view.
LeviF Posted February 13, 2010 Posted February 13, 2010 The lack of religious tolerance in America is astounding to me. Well, when you need a "revelation" in 1978 to allow blacks in your temple ceremonies and to be ordained as priests...
pBills Posted February 13, 2010 Posted February 13, 2010 And that's why he'll never make it past the primaries. The left already spends a bunch of time mocking Christians. Throw in some bigamy and caffeine misconceptions, and he's sunk before the boat even gets wet. The left would be mocking his religion so badly, it would make it look like they treated Palin with a featherduster. Oh my lord, all people should be worried (not mock) someone if they are pushing their beliefs. Ones religion should not be involved with the way they serve while in office.
Alaska Darin Posted February 14, 2010 Posted February 14, 2010 Oh my lord, all people should be worried (not mock) someone if they are pushing their beliefs. Ones religion should not be involved with the way they serve while in office.
pBills Posted February 14, 2010 Posted February 14, 2010 So his personal beliefs should be part of how his administration works?
Alaska Darin Posted February 14, 2010 Posted February 14, 2010 So his personal beliefs should be part of how his administration works? Are you really that dumb?
pBills Posted February 14, 2010 Posted February 14, 2010 Are you really that dumb? Just answer the damn question? Of course people will want to place their own religious beliefs into situations... should they? Are you happy with that? Do you want to see that from in government? Yes or No.
Alaska Darin Posted February 14, 2010 Posted February 14, 2010 Just answer the damn question? Learn to use punctuation. Of course people will want to place their own religious beliefs into situations... should they? It doesn't matter whether they "should" or not. Most "religious" people are absolutely going to do it because they can't help themselves. It's one of the reasons the ridiculous abortion issue continues to actually be a talking point despite the fact that over half a million American children are under government care on any given day. Yeah, zealots. Go ahead and fight for the rights of the unborn while ignoring the epidemic in your backyards. Dicks. Are you happy with that? Given the fact that I'm agnostic and think virtually all religious people are more devoted to hypocrisy than their religions, I'd say the answer is a pretty emphatic no. Do you want to see that from in government? There are a lot of things I don't want to see in government. People using religion as a tool (think GWB and his moral mandate to start unwinnable wars all over the globe because "God" was on his side) is ridiculous. The funny part is they almost never err on the side that their "teachings" would seem to require. Yes or No. Since you're pretty much an idiot (I just can't resist) and I don't want you to misunderstand me, the answer is NO. That doesn't mean that deeply religious people can separate their religion from their obligation and it certainly doesn't mean they won't hire other hypocritical religious douche bags to serve along side - because I haven't seen many who are able to.
pBills Posted February 14, 2010 Posted February 14, 2010 Learn to use punctuation. It doesn't matter whether they "should" or not. Most "religious" people are absolutely going to do it because they can't help themselves. It's one of the reasons the ridiculous abortion issue continues to actually be a talking point despite the fact that over half a million American children are under government care on any given day. Yeah, zealots. Go ahead and fight for the rights of the unborn while ignoring the epidemic in your backyards. Dicks. Given the fact that I'm agnostic and think virtually all religious people are more devoted to hypocrisy than their religions, I'd say the answer is a pretty emphatic no. There are a lot of things I don't want to see in government. People using religion as a tool (think GWB and his moral mandate to start unwinnable wars all over the globe because "God" was on his side) is ridiculous. The funny part is they almost never err on the side that their "teachings" would seem to require. Since you're pretty much an idiot (I just can't resist) and I don't want you to misunderstand me, the answer is NO. That doesn't mean that deeply religious people can separate their religion from their obligation and it certainly doesn't mean they won't hire other hypocritical religious douche bags to serve along side - because I haven't seen many who are able to. Again, showing your true maturity by calling me an idiot. Thank you for answering.
IDBillzFan Posted February 14, 2010 Posted February 14, 2010 Again, showing your true maturity by calling me an idiot. Thank you for answering. He answers all your questions, and THIS is what you respond with. That's awesome.
John Adams Posted February 14, 2010 Posted February 14, 2010 The lack of religious tolerance in America is astounding to me. The poor religious in America. Ever-oppressed. Holding no positions of power. Boo hoo. Imagine what would happen if an elected official in high office said he's not religious...he would probably get 98% of the vote. An atheist could grab 100%.
pBills Posted February 14, 2010 Posted February 14, 2010 He answers all your questions, and THIS is what you respond with. That's awesome. Yes, he responded. I especially love the idiot part. Just proving he is person who can't simply talk to people with different views, instead believes that attempting to demean is the best way to go. I believe that shows ones lack of maturity, lack of credibility. I have stated MANY times (even though I am labeled a liberal) that both sides of government are at fault with the problems our country is facing. Both sides. I have also stated that I wouldn't mind seeing a whole new set of fresh faces in Washington. A new set of ideas that will hopefully get this country moving in the right direction. The right direction with healthcare reform, the economy, job creation, etc. I have also stated that not all union members are good, hard working people (example the Teamsters people keep bringing up), yet the actions of the few do not represent the whole. To see these statements and to come back with an attack, an failed attempt to demean, etc. do nothing but show a lack of comprehension or reason. A shining example of why nothing ever gets done in Washington. Of course people will want to place their own religious beliefs into situations... should they? It doesn't matter whether they "should" or not. Most "religious" people are absolutely going to do it because they can't help themselves. It's one of the reasons the ridiculous abortion issue continues to actually be a talking point despite the fact that over half a million American children are under government care on any given day. Yeah, zealots. Go ahead and fight for the rights of the unborn while ignoring the epidemic in your backyards. Dicks. I agree with this. Most people will do it or try to do it. I know that. I do not want to have someone like Mitt in office. Yeah, he may be strong with the economy, however I feel that his foreign relations background is not strong enough and that he flip flops to much on social issues. Yes, over a half million children are under government care, yet that does not give the government the right to tell women what to do with their body. I don't see how Religion and Women's Rights is a ridiculous issue. Are you happy with that? Given the fact that I'm agnostic and think virtually all religious people are more devoted to hypocrisy than their religions, I'd say the answer is a pretty emphatic no. He answered emphatically no. What more is there to say to this? Do you want to see that from in government? There are a lot of things I don't want to see in government. People using religion as a tool (think GWB and his moral mandate to start unwinnable wars all over the globe because "God" was on his side) is ridiculous. The funny part is they almost never err on the side that their "teachings" would seem to require. Again, answered no. Also, stated that he does like it when people use religion as a tool. I agree with that and wish that it would stay out of government and its policies. Yes or No. Since you're pretty much an idiot (I just can't resist) and I don't want you to misunderstand me, the answer is NO. That doesn't mean that deeply religious people can separate their religion from their obligation and it certainly doesn't mean they won't hire other hypocritical religious douche bags to serve along side - because I haven't seen many who are able to. Couldn't answer with a simple yes or no. Instead calls me an idiot. Instantly loses any credibility.
Alaska Darin Posted February 14, 2010 Posted February 14, 2010 Couldn't answer with a simple yes or no. Instead calls me an idiot. Instantly loses any credibility. The implication is that I would ever care about your opinion of my credibility. Guess why I think you're an idiot.
pBills Posted February 14, 2010 Posted February 14, 2010 The implication is that I would ever care about your opinion of my credibility. Guess why I think you're an idiot. Should have expected that from someone as pompous as you. Have fun living in your bubble.
Alaska Darin Posted February 14, 2010 Posted February 14, 2010 Have fun living in your bubble. Yeah, I'm the one with that particular problem. Let's hear from the studio audience, shall we?
pBills Posted February 14, 2010 Posted February 14, 2010 Yeah, I'm the one with that particular problem. Let's hear from the studio audience, shall we? Yeah, you do have a problem. Go get some help. You truly need it.
John Adams Posted February 14, 2010 Posted February 14, 2010 Yeah, I'm the one with that particular problem. Let's hear from the studio audience, shall we? I think pbills is awesome.
LeviF Posted February 14, 2010 Posted February 14, 2010 The poor religious in America. Ever-oppressed. Holding no positions of power. Boo hoo. Imagine what would happen if an elected official in high office said he's not religious...he would probably get 98% of the vote. An atheist could grab 100%. Geez, what is this country coming to?
Nanker Posted February 15, 2010 Posted February 15, 2010 The poor religious in America. Ever-oppressed. Holding no positions of power. Boo hoo. Imagine what would happen if an elected official in high office said he's not religious...he would probably get 98% of the vote. An atheist could grab 100%. Sorry, I don't see it that way. To me, why should anyone care what another's religious beliefs - or non beliefs are? Everyone is guaranteed religious liberty in this country. Exercising that liberty puts a lot of people's panties in a wad when their beliefs differ with those of others. It's called freedom. Of all the rights that are guaranteed in the Constitution, I think religious freedom is the one that is least well tolerated. The secularists promote tolerance - except when it comes to religion. In that case, everyone's bat-****-crazy if they profess faith in anything not empirically proven in the court of "science". I'm not particularly religious. I have certain beliefs that I keep to myself and my family. I agree that there are few things more intrusive and unwelcome to most people than a proselytizing zealous believer of (any) faith. What does it matter to others what my beliefs - or anyone else's - are, or are not?
John Adams Posted February 15, 2010 Posted February 15, 2010 Sorry, I don't see it that way. To me, why should anyone care what another's religious beliefs - or non beliefs are? Everyone is guaranteed religious liberty in this country. Exercising that liberty puts a lot of people's panties in a wad when their beliefs differ with those of others. It's called freedom. Of all the rights that are guaranteed in the Constitution, I think religious freedom is the one that is least well tolerated. The secularists promote tolerance - except when it comes to religion. In that case, everyone's bat-****-crazy if they profess faith in anything not empirically proven in the court of "science". I'm not particularly religious. I have certain beliefs that I keep to myself and my family. I agree that there are few things more intrusive and unwelcome to most people than a proselytizing zealous believer of (any) faith. What does it matter to others what my beliefs - or anyone else's - are, or are not? First, let's not confuse the Constitutional right. Everyone has the right to be batshit crazy as long as the beliefs don't infringe other rights, eg, a right to execute adulters. Second, it matters to me when people like Bush put their decision-making in god's hands and say that they make their decisions after talking to god. And it matters to me that Obama went happily to a Church with a seemingly bona fide lunatic at its head for a decade. So it does matter to me. If you have some little box where you go to talk to god, I can get over it as long as you are basing your day-to-day actions on some rational and reasoned belief system. Lincoln seemed to work in that framework. Today's politicians, however, can't get elected without proving that they go to church diligently and believe in god (preferably the Christian one). This Jesus litmus test for politicians is abhorrent and the lack of tolerance for non-believers is still a widespread fact of life--while the secularists disdain for religion remains a quaint little point of interest.
Recommended Posts