b kind
To continually bash another's religion is such poor taste. I just wish you would realize that.
Please, oh please dear admin, delete this thread.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on June 13, 2012, 11:13:10 PM
To continually bash another's religion is such poor taste. I just wish you would realize that.
Please, oh please dear admin, delete this thread.
The article did not bash Mormons. It pointed out the results of a survey. But rather than allow mister sensitive and resident MP to again manipulate the admin. into censoring the thread, I cleared the link and the copy. You can google it if you are interested before this thread gets yanked over a personal vendetta.
Thank you mister Clown. It ain't personal.
Quote from: Teatownclown on June 13, 2012, 11:50:13 PM
The article did not bash Mormons. It pointed out the results of a survey. But rather than allow mister sensitive and resident MP to again manipulate the admin. into censoring the thread, I cleared the link and the copy. You can google it if you are interested before this thread gets yanked over a personal vendetta.
Clown is a fitting moniker.
Anyone who ridicules a persons race, sexuality, or religion for the purpose of bolstering or weakening a political position is a fool. The strength of our country is founded on the principal that all of us are equal in our freedom to participate in the political process without such prejudices as long as our beliefs do not infringe on the rights of others.
You spend all of your time railing against bigotry and intolerance, yet you are the only person who actively and freely displays those traits. At times your level of animosity and hatred for others has gotten you barred from this forum and caused you to re-invent yourself and sneak back in. Each time the admins are quick to forgive and reluctantly invite you back to the conversation. Their tolerance as well as the tolerance of your fellow posters is eventually rewarded with the same poison.
It seems that the entropy that typically erodes the false facade you invent for yourself is again apparent, and devoid of any reasonable arguments to make, you start to show us your true nature in the hatred that motivates you. You may claim to idolize cultural visionaries who preached peace & love, yet you do not adopt their principals. You are at battle with yourself. Your ego wants to be admired as a model of fairness, equality, and peace, yet the animal that lives inside of you is filled with hatred, spite, envy, and prejudice.
There have been times when I have used your effluvium as an example of the modern Liberal and/or progressive mindset, but that is unfair to others, and I am sorry for doing so.
We don't want you to go away, but we do want you to work on what is broken in you.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 14, 2012, 07:58:08 AM
Clown is a fitting moniker.
Anyone who ridicules a persons race, sexuality, or religion for the purpose of bolstering or weakening a political position is a fool. The strength of our country is founded on the principal that all of us are equal in our freedom to participate in the political process without such prejudices as long as our beliefs do not infringe on the rights of others.
You spend all of your time railing against bigotry and intolerance, yet you are the only person who actively and freely displays those traits. At times your level of animosity and hatred for others has gotten you barred from this forum and caused you to re-invent yourself and sneak back in. Each time the admins are quick to forgive and reluctantly invite you back to the conversation. Their tolerance as well as the tolerance of your fellow posters is eventually rewarded with the same poison.
It seems that the entropy that typically erodes the false facade you invent for yourself is again apparent, and devoid of any reasonable arguments to make, you start to show us your true nature in the hatred that motivates you. You may claim to idolize cultural visionaries who preached peace & love, yet you do not adopt their principals. You are at battle with yourself. Your ego wants to be admired as a model of fairness, equality, and peace, yet the animal that lives inside of you is filled with hatred, spite, envy, and prejudice.
There have been times when I have used your effluvium as an example of the modern Liberal and/or progressive mindset, but that is unfair to others, and I am sorry for doing so.
We don't want you to go away, but we do want you to work on what is broken in you.
You are wrong. It was a paste and copy of a survey.
Your personal attacks are unrelated. And the constant attack on women's rights makes you a hypocrite. No sooprise... :o
Quote from: Teatownclown on June 14, 2012, 08:06:10 AM
You are wrong. It was a paste and copy of a survey.
Your personal attacks are unrelated. And the constant attack on women's rights makes you a hypocrite. No sooprise... :o
Clown, If you think I am only referring to this thread you are mistaken. There is rarely a political thread where you do not choose to disintegrate into some form of name calling or bigotry.
Yet, he is not alone in doing so nor in fulfilling your criticisms. He is alone in being asked publicly to stop such behaviors. Perhaps because he is more focussed and successful in his efforts to wake people to reality. I personally think OK politics and culture are unredeemable. No hope for catching up with the outside world. But if he wants to joust at windmills, so be it. Consider his remarks carefully before dismissing them because of his style. There is no chance in hell that an atheist, agnostic, Jew, or Native American religious leader is going to be considered for president even if they have the best solutions for America's problems. That is powerful.
Why is religion is off limits in this political race for the white male? Where was your intelligent outrage at bringing up the presidents church and how it's non conforming style might have affected his leadership? But ruminations of how the Mormon church might exact influence is anti-religion? American's are increasing embracing conformity and hypocrisy. This forum is no outlier.
Gaspar...you must disply where i have exhibited bigotry. Show examples. Put up.
Quote from: Teatownclown on June 14, 2012, 10:47:24 AM
Gaspar...you must disply where i have exhibited bigotry. Show examples. Put up.
It would be rather exhausting to go back and search for all the insults and pet words you have for various groups, so I'll tell you what I will do. From now on, I will point it out as it happens and perhaps the knowledge of that will help you to think twice before belittling a group of people based on race, religion or other factors of heritage.
Quote from: AquaMan on June 14, 2012, 10:15:20 AM
There is no chance in hell that an atheist, agnostic, Jew, or Native American religious leader is going to be considered for president even if they have the best solutions for America's problems. That is powerful.
I do not subscribe to that. Not one bit. Not for a second. It was said that Kennedy could never be president because he was Catholic. We've seen this play out before. When pundits run low on ammunition to criticize a candidate, the worst of them go for the lowest common denominator, to ridicule race, religion or heritage. We see it on both sides, and it is despicable. It is a remnant of a political and cultural weapon that should have been laid to rest decades ago, yet there are still those that want to revive it for their own advantage. It is dangerous, because acting upon it gives it power.
A couple of short generations ago, much of my family was lucky enough to escape with a tattoo and a very different outlook on prejudice, but many of them did not escape at all. The Gaspars, the Gimples, and the Fleshers are survivors of what started as simple words about groups of people. In a civilized society it was unthinkable that those simple prejudices could get out of hand, but they did.
There is no barrier to legal political participation in this country except for the ones we allow others to place upon us, and those can be overcome, and must be fought with conviction every time they arise. For you to say "There is no chance in hell that an atheist, agnostic, Jew, or Native American religious leader is going to be considered for president" only perpetuates prejudice and sends the wrong message to our children. By choosing to believe that you surrender to it!
Quote from: AquaMan on June 14, 2012, 10:15:20 AM
Yet, he is not alone in doing so nor in fulfilling your criticisms. He is alone in being asked publicly to stop such behaviors. Perhaps because he is more focussed and successful in his efforts to wake people to reality. I personally think OK politics and culture are unredeemable. No hope for catching up with the outside world. But if he wants to joust at windmills, so be it. Consider his remarks carefully before dismissing them because of his style. There is no chance in hell that an atheist, agnostic, Jew, or Native American religious leader is going to be considered for president even if they have the best solutions for America's problems. That is powerful.
Why is religion is off limits in this political race for the white male? Where was your intelligent outrage at bringing up the presidents church and how it's non conforming style might have affected his leadership? But ruminations of how the Mormon church might exact influence is anti-religion? American's are increasing embracing conformity and hypocrisy. This forum is no outlier.
Yet at some point I'm sure you were convinced a black man would never be president, weren't you?
Gaspar, thanks for putting me in the lowest common denominator. I was chatting with a couple of little boys recently who were quite proud that they were of black and Native American ancestry. I told them my ancestors were Irish, English, Welsh and Cherokee. "What does that make you?" they asked. "A hairy old white guy." I replied.
There is talk of freedom, equality, lack of prejudice in America and there is reality. We codify the former, we live the latter. You tell me how a atheist Democrat gets elected president in America. How? Can you imagine the lust in the eyes of Fox and Friends?
When it comes to elections, everything is on the table and a lot more just under the table.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 14, 2012, 11:46:29 AM
Yet at some point I'm sure you were convinced a black man would never be president, weren't you?
I suppose somewhere in my past but not in the last decade. Maybe I should amend it to be yeah, he can get elected but we'll make sure it appears he is a dismal failure so we can keep it from happening again!
Seriously, it was a nice jump from my father's generation but religion tops race. And i like your optimism, but no, America is not ready for a gay, an atheist or a Muslim unless Fox and the Republican party run one. They would have people jumping ship to be a part of that.
Quote from: AquaMan on June 14, 2012, 11:57:01 AM
I suppose somewhere in my past but not in the last decade. Maybe I should amend it to be yeah, he can get elected but we'll make sure it appears he is a dismal failure so we can keep it from happening again!
Seriously, it was a nice jump from my father's generation but religion tops race. And i like your optimism, but no, America is not ready for a gay, an atheist or a Muslim unless Fox and the Republican party run one. They would have people jumping ship to be a part of that.
Really I think the narrow-mindedness in the country is finally narrowing. Look at how many more people approve of gay marriage than they did even 10 years ago and it's got nothing to do with the president's recent conversion. There are even mainstream Christian churches who openly welcome gay people and don't try to fix their ghey.
Again, I'm from the human race first and foremost. But since everyone else demands some sort of special tribal recognition I think I will too. From now on I'm a Hetero-Caucasian-Welsh-American.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 14, 2012, 12:06:16 PM
Really I think the narrow-mindedness in the country is finally narrowing. Look at how many more people approve of gay marriage than they did even 10 years ago and it's got nothing to do with the president's recent conversion. There are even mainstream Christian churches who openly welcome gay people and don't try to fix their ghey.
Again, I'm from the human race first and foremost. But since everyone else demands some sort of special tribal recognition I think I will too. From now on I'm a Hetero-Caucasian-Welsh-American.
HOLY PICT! We might be cousins! My tribe hails from Bodorgan, Wales. The castle there has been continously occupied since the fifth century by the descendants of my mother's family.
Please quit referring to Catholicism and Kennedy as being out of the mainstream even in 1959. It's Christian based.
Do you really get bothered by my feeling that the ultimate litmus test in America for Presidential candidates is attending church and a Christian one at that. And the survey merely portrays that many Christians still consider Mormonism odd.
Gaspar, you can have someone go through all my posts and they will never pin the theme of bigotry on me. Unless they pull it out of their a$$ like you do by putting that label on me. I get the impression you aren't very smart. But then again, you've never been put in the position of being discriminated against or hated on (TNF don't count)!
Some of us are experienced.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 14, 2012, 12:06:16 PM
Really I think the narrow-mindedness in the country is finally narrowing. Look at how many more people approve of gay marriage than they did even 10 years ago and it's got nothing to do with the president's recent conversion. There are even mainstream Christian churches who openly welcome gay people and don't try to fix their ghey.
Again, I'm from the human race first and foremost. But since everyone else demands some sort of special tribal recognition I think I will too. From now on I'm a Hetero-Caucasian-Welsh-American.
I'm fairly offended by any form or application that asks for my race or religion, so I always put African. The majority of scientific research indicates that the Homo-Sapien began fairly close to Egypt, so for all intensive purposes we are African, but if I had to get granular I suppose I would say Afro-sumari-slovic-anglo-ameri-okie. Yeah, that's me.
Quote from: Teatownclown on June 14, 2012, 12:29:59 PM
Please quit referring to Catholicism and Kennedy as being out of the mainstream even in 1959. It's Christian based.
The reason it was such a big deal was because people thought Kennedy was going to be taking orders from the Pope, or as we call it today, he was going to legislate morality. Remember, the U.S. got it's start by fleeing from religious persecution, by Catholics. It may have been a few generations down the road, but they didn't forget, and neither should we.
Quote from: Teatownclown on June 14, 2012, 12:29:59 PM
Gaspar, you can have someone go through all my posts and they will never pin the theme of bigotry on me. Unless they pull it out of their a$$ like you do by putting that label on me.
We'll see how that goes. I think it may be difficult for you to temper your ridicule of the various groups and people you disagree with based on their genitic heritage or beliefs.
BTW. . .I don't know anyone who hasn't been discriminated against for one reason or another. It's how you handle it that matters. . .whether you choose to prove the steriotypes wrong or prove them right.
Quote from: Teatownclown on June 14, 2012, 12:29:59 PM
Gaspar, you can have someone go through all my posts and they will never pin the theme of bigotry on me. Unless they pull it out of their a$$ like you do by putting that label on me. I get the impression you aren't very smart. But then again, you've never been put in the position of being discriminated against or hated on (TNF don't count)!
For starters, you make fun of the fat and uber-fundamentalist Christians. You also make disparaging comments toward females on a regular basis. You also frequently portray people as racist even when their actions and words are completely counter to being racist in nature.
Comments like this usually stem from fear or ignorance. You aren't stupid, so all I can conclude is you are afraid of women, fat people, and God. :-*
Quote from: Gaspar on June 14, 2012, 12:48:42 PM
We'll see how that goes. I think it may be difficult for you to temper your ridicule of the various groups and people you disagree with based on their genitic heritage or beliefs.
BTW. . .I don't know anyone who hasn't been discriminated against for one reason or another. It's how you handle it that matters. . .whether you choose to prove the steriotypes wrong or prove them right.
Ever thought about not saying anything? When you do, it reveals a dark side unaware of what the discussion is really about. All this time I've thought some of your posts were thread busters or just diversions. Lurker.
Quote from: Teatownclown on June 14, 2012, 12:52:07 PM
Ever thought about not saying anything? When you do, it reveals a dark side unaware of what the discussion is really about. All this time I've thought some of your posts were thread busters or just diversions. Lurker.
Sorry this is a sensitive subject. Lets just move forward and I won't call you out unless you make an inappropriate statement.
Quote from: erfalf on June 14, 2012, 12:43:41 PM
The reason it was such a big deal was because people thought Kennedy was going to be taking orders from the Pope, or as we call it today, he was going to legislate morality. Remember, the U.S. got it's start by fleeing from religious persecution, by Catholics. It may have been a few generations down the road, but they didn't forget, and neither should we.
I said it before, I'll ask it again: would you vote for a Scientologist?
I'll be glad when it no longer matters what your church is because they've all been indited.
I just worry about the mysterious one's cloaked in rich traditions of making things up, their proselytizing ways, and their power hierarchies.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 14, 2012, 12:06:16 PM
Really I think the narrow-mindedness in the country is finally narrowing.
You don't know or talk to anyone from Texas, do you?
Quote from: erfalf on June 14, 2012, 12:43:41 PM
The reason it was such a big deal was because people thought Kennedy was going to be taking orders from the Pope, or as we call it today, he was going to legislate morality. Remember, the U.S. got it's start by fleeing from religious persecution, by Catholics. It may have been a few generations down the road, but they didn't forget, and neither should we.
Good night, where did you study history!!???
They SAID they were fleeing religious persecution in England - which was Church of England. And while it DID start a thousand years earlier as Catholic, in 1534 became one of the Protestant spin-offs. So it was not Catholicism they were fleeing.
As for fleeing - well, actually what they wanted to do was twofold - escape the persecution they were experiencing and set up their own persecution thing here. By 1789, that was pretty well institutionalized in the colonies when the Constitution took effect and started the process of working toward the ideal of religious freedom in this country.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 14, 2012, 12:49:18 PM
.... so all I can conclude is you are afraid of women, fat people, and God. :-*
I'm afraid of all three! And I AM at least one of those...
Hint; not a woman and certainly not God.
Quote from: AquaMan on June 14, 2012, 12:14:48 PM
My tribe hails from Bodorgan, Wales.
One of my favorite jokes...if I ever do stand up in England, I am using it...
Who here is from Wales? I come from humans myself.
Two priests decided to go to Hawaii on vacation.
They were determined to make this a real vacation by not wearing
anything that would identify them as clergy. As soon as the plane
landed they headed for a store and bought some really outrageous
shorts, shirts, sandals, sunglasses, etc.
The next morning they went to the beach dressed in their 'tourist'
garb.
They were sitting on beach chairs, enjoying a drink, the sunshine and
the scenery when a 'drop dead gorgeous' blonde in a topless bikini came
walking straight towards them. They couldn't help but stare.
As the blonde passed them she smiled and said 'Good Morning, Father ~
Good Morning, Father,' nodding and addressing each of them
individually, then she passed on by.
They were both stunned. How in the world did she know they were
priests?
So the next day, they went back to the store and bought even more
outrageous outfits.
These were so loud you could hear them before you even saw them! Once
again, in their new attire, they settled down in their chairs to enjoy
the sunshine.
After a little while, the same gorgeous blonde, wearing just a
different colored bikini bottom, taking her sweet time, came walking
toward them.
Again she nodded at each of them, said 'Good morning, Father ~ Good
morning, Father,' and started to walk away.
One of the priests couldn't stand it any longer and said, 'Just a
minute, young lady.'
'Yes, Father?'
'We are priests and proud of it, but I have to know, how in the world
do you know we are priests, dressed as we are?'
She replied, 'Father, it's me, Sister Kathleen.'
QuoteMitt Romney's Mormon faith tangles with a quirk of Arkansas history
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mitt-romneys-mormon-faith-tangles-with-a-quirk-of-arkansas-history/2012/05/20/gIQAKHVFeU_story.html
By Sandhya Somashekhar, Published: May 20
CARROLLTON, Ark. — On the wildflower-studded slopes of the Ozarks, where memories run long and family ties run thick, a little-known and long-ago chapter of history still simmers.
On Sept. 11, 1857, a wagon train from this part of Arkansas met with a gruesome fate in Utah, where most of the travelers were slaughtered by a Mormon militia in an episode known as the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Hundreds of the victims' descendants still populate these hills and commemorate the killings, which they have come to call "the first 9/11."
Many of the locals grew up hearing denunciations of Mormonism from the pulpit on Sundays, and tales of the massacre from older relatives who considered Mormons "evil."
"There have been Fancher family reunions for 150 years, and the massacre comes up at every one of them," said Scott Fancher, 58, who traces his lineage back to 26 members of the wagon train, which was known as the Fancher-Baker party. "The more whiskey we drunk, the more resentful we got."
There aren't many places in America more likely to be suspicious of Mormonism — and potentially more problematic for Mitt Romney, who is seeking to become the country's first Mormon president. Not only do many here retain a personal antipathy toward the religion and its followers, but they also tend to be Christian evangelicals, many of whom view Mormonism as a cult.
And yet, there is scant evidence that Romney's religion is making much difference in how voters here are thinking about the presidential election and whether they are willing to back the former Massachusetts governor.
"I think the situation right now is more anti-Obama than any other situation," said Dave Hoover, chairman of the Carroll County Republicans.
It is impossible to know how Romney's faith will play out in the November election. Polls point to a persistent skepticism about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and not just among evangelical Christians. Thirty-five percent of Americans in a Bloomberg News poll in March said they had an unfavorable view of the church, while 29 percent had a favorable view.
But it may not have a major impact on their vote: Eight out of 10 Republicans and Democrats said Romney's faith was not a major reason to support or oppose him, according to an April Washington Post-ABC News poll. And a recent study by the Brookings Institution found that Romney's religion may actually increase his support from conservative voters, including white evangelicals.
Indeed, many here say their political values will be more important to their vote than religion or history. A rural and deeply religious community, many cite the cultural issues of abortion and gun rights as foremost on their minds. The weak economy has deepened their dislike of President Obama, who received less than 40 percent of the vote in Arkansas in 2008.
Still, Romney's candidacy has prompted some soul-searching in this area, where a historical group estimates that more than half the residents can trace their ancestry back to the wagon train.
Now RM, don't get your panties in a wad over this...just pointing out that if elected, the White House will be run by MOR
MONS! :D
Quote from: RecycleMichael on June 14, 2012, 02:09:02 PM
One of my favorite jokes...if I ever do stand up in England, I am using it...
Who here is from Wales? I come from humans myself.
Whaling is illegal in Oklahoma.
http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/oklahoma
QuoteNow Mitt Romney Says That The Reason He Won't Release His Tax Returns Has To Do With His Religion...
http://www.businessinsider.com/mitt-romney-tax-returns-rate-policy-release-mormon-tithes-2012-8
Brett LoGiurato
Mitt Romney has said he won't release more than two years of tax returns because "you can never satisfy the opposition research team of the Obama organization."
But in a forthcoming interview with Parade magazine, Romney revealed a new reason why he's hesitant to release more returns: He does not want to make public his donations to the LDS Church.
Here's what Romney told Parade, according to The Salt-Lake Tribune:
"Our church doesn't publish how much people have given. This is done entirely privately. One of the downsides of releasing one's financial information is that this is now all public, but we had never intended our contributions to be known. It's a very personal thing between ourselves and our commitment to our God and to our church."
Romney has released one year of tax returns and plans to release another before the election. He has come under fire from the Obama campaign and Democrats like Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who charged that Romney did not pay taxes for 10 years.
His one year of released returns shows that Romney donated just less than $4.1 million to the LDS Church on an income of more than $40 million.
In bringing up a new reason for not releasing the returns, however, Romney may have thrust the subject back into the news cycle for the next few days as the Republican National Convention prepares to start up.
Now RM, don't get your panties in a wad over this...just pointing out that if elected, the White House will be run by MOR
MONS!
:D
You see, I know he's placed his church in a priority position over his country....that's obvious from his draft dodging excuses.
(https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/564460_421825527876720_1425129599_n.jpg)
I love this....jeeez, in 30 years this country will be Marshall Law and what's left of progressive will be George Bush quotes.....
Quote from: Teatownclown on October 08, 2012, 03:11:37 PM
I love this....jeeez, in 30 years this country will be Marshall Law
If this country will require each of its citizens to consume a certain amount of Marshall's each year, I won't complain. If, on the other hand, you actually meant "martial law" I think you need to find a different strain of "medicine" because the one you're on is making you paranoid.
Quote from: nathanm on October 08, 2012, 03:18:33 PM
If this country will require each of its citizens to consume a certain amount of Marshall's each year, I won't complain. If, on the other hand, you actually meant "martial law" I think you need to find a different strain of "medicine" because the one you're on is making you paranoid.
No...Martial...I stand corrected. Although, I am not the least bit paranoid. Just comparing where we've been and where we're headed.
Quote from: Teatownclown on October 08, 2012, 03:24:34 PM
Although, I am not the least bit paranoid.
That's what my friend's dad used to say. He was what today would just be considered an avid listener of Alex Jones. He was constantly going on about the New World Order, the concentration camps Bush and Clinton were building, and yes, martial law. He even bought into the "gold fringe on the flag equals martial law" thing. So forgive me if I don't believe people when they say that they're not paranoid.
Well yes, we can see what those crazy Mormons have done to the Senate, Clown.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 08, 2012, 03:55:55 PM
Well yes, we can see what those crazy Mormons have done to the Senate, Clown.
You shouldn't make fun of crazy....
Quote from: Conan71 on October 08, 2012, 03:55:55 PM
Well yes, we can see what those crazy Mormons have done to the Senate, Clown.
Just eats him up that there are people who believe differently than he does.
Quote from: Gaspar on October 08, 2012, 03:58:19 PM
Just eats him up that there are people who believe differently than he does.
It does?
Compromise does not mean "Democrats give Republicans everything they want and nothing they don't want".
Quote from: Teatownclown on October 08, 2012, 03:58:15 PM
You shouldn't make fun of crazy....
You shouldn't make fun of and belittle people's religious practices.
Quote from: nathanm on October 08, 2012, 04:00:33 PM
Compromise does not mean "Democrats give Republicans everything they want and nothing they don't want".
It does when you are a Republican.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 08, 2012, 04:07:35 PM
You shouldn't make fun of and belittle people's religious practices.
All is fair when the election might negate what remaining freedoms we have.....
Religious practices in this case is dependent on a guy named Smith, The Master?
Sorry. If you hadn't made disparaging remarks against Obama for his affiliation with Rev. Wright you might have credibility here.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 14, 2012, 07:58:08 AM
Clown is a fitting moniker.
Anyone who ridicules a persons race, sexuality, or religion for the purpose of bolstering or weakening a political position is a fool. The strength of our country is founded on the principal that all of us are equal in our freedom to participate in the political process without such prejudices as long as our beliefs do not infringe on the rights of others.
I don't know what the link was.. But anyway, on what you said.
(http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/files/2012/05/SouthTexArkanMissTennPennLand_07.jpg)
Quote from: Conan71 on October 08, 2012, 04:08:02 PM
It does when you are a Republican.
Only if you don't understand the concept of compromise.
Quote from: nathanm on October 08, 2012, 04:58:48 PM
Only if you don't understand the concept of compromise.
Check yourself.
Compromise is not both sides screaming what they want. Compromise is both sides sitting down and negotiating an agreement. Good or bad, legislation needs to be voted on or worked through committee. Simply tabling the bills you agree or disagree with to avoid embarrassing defeat or passage, IS obstructionism. Holding legislation hostage rather than voting on it is not compromise.
. . .and from the executive side, the one time this president made an attempt to sit down with Republicans and hammer out an agreement ended up in a sophomoric debacle, because after an agreement was reached, he saw that as an opportunity to push for additional demands. Freeking clueless!
If Mr. Romney's only credential was that he was successful in working with a 89% liberal democrat state legislature amicably, that is enough to qualify him beyond anything President Obama has accomplished in his entire life. . .and no, I don't consider writing two autobiographies as a senator and winning the Nobel prize for somthing that the Nobel commission can't even articulate, qualification. 4 Years later, we now have validation of everything we feared in the election of such an amateur individual to such a position of such responsibility.
Liberals should rejoice. They will probably get more of their programs passed or at least moved Forward! with Romney than with President Obama. He is the most amazing failure of a leader we've ever endured. The only thing he's been successful at is taking two political parties that both offer good ideas, with clear philosophical disagreement, and dividing them even further to the point where nothing functional can happen.
There is no wizard behind the curtain, no Hope & Change, just a narcissist with grand ambition, and a bag full of of disjointed visions, more suitable for stories in the classroom than the real world.
This president wasn't interested in progress through compromise, he was interested in plowing things through, or waiting until the last minute. . .until rash decisions were inevitable and bad decisions unavoidable. His concept of economics and his understanding of free markets was so idealistic that his own party was unwilling to entertain his budgetary proposals, that after analysis were deemed to be disastrous. Had he a sympathetic Congress, this country would be closer to bankruptcy than it already is.
When he couldn't' get 100% agreement, instead of compromise and negotiation, he sought ways outside, around, or beyond congress to accomplish his goals. His personality is that of a spoiled child, hiding behind anything and everything. Ready to blame anyone but himself. Throwing out flair and chaff, to avoid being pinned down. Talented at making his case, but only when prompted with talking points.
Poorly behaved children do not compromise. They do not admit when they've made a mistake. They whine, cry, and throw tantrums. In the worst cases, if they can't get what they want, they sneak it, and risk punishment. When caught, they blame others. It's never their fault. But what is worse is the parents that spoil them, defend their actions, and act as proxies.
Quote from: Gaspar on October 09, 2012, 08:31:36 AM
Check yourself.
Compromise is not both sides screaming what they want. Compromise is both sides sitting down and negotiating an agreement. Good or bad, legislation needs to be voted on or worked through committee. Simply tabling the bills you agree or disagree with to avoid embarrassing defeat or passage, IS obstructionism. Holding legislation hostage rather than voting on it is not compromise.
. . .and from the executive side, the one time this president made an attempt to sit down with Republicans and hammer out an agreement ended up in a sophomoric debacle, because after an agreement was reached, he saw that as an opportunity to push for additional demands. Freeking clueless!
If Mr. Romney's only credential was that he was successful in working with a 89% liberal democrat state legislature amicably, that is enough to qualify him beyond anything President Obama has accomplished in his entire life. . .and no, I don't consider writing two autobiographies as a senator and winning the Nobel prize for somthing that the Nobel commission can't even articulate, qualification. 4 Years later, we now have validation of everything we feared in the election of such an amateur individual to such a position of such responsibility.
Liberals should rejoice. They will probably get more of their programs passed or at least moved Forward! with Romney than with President Obama. He is the most amazing failure of a leader we've ever endured. The only thing he's been successful at is taking two political parties that both offer good ideas, with clear philosophical disagreement, and dividing them even further to the point where nothing functional can happen.
There is no wizard behind the curtain, no Hope & Change, just a narcissist with grand ambition, and a bag full of of disjointed visions, more suitable for stories in the classroom than the real world.
This president wasn't interested in progress through compromise, he was interested in plowing things through, or waiting until the last minute. . .until rash decisions were inevitable and bad decisions unavoidable. His concept of economics and his understanding of free markets was so idealistic that his own party was unwilling to entertain his budgetary proposals, that after analysis were deemed to be disastrous. Had he a sympathetic Congress, this country would be closer to bankruptcy than it already is.
When he couldn't' get 100% agreement, instead of compromise and negotiation, he sought ways outside, around, or beyond congress to accomplish his goals. His personality is that of a spoiled child, hiding behind anything and everything. Ready to blame anyone but himself. Throwing out flair and chaff, to avoid being pinned down. Talented at making his case, but only when prompted with talking points.
Poorly behaved children do not compromise. They do not admit when they've made a mistake. They whine, cry, and throw tantrums. In the worst cases, if they can't get what they want, they sneak it, and risk punishment. When caught, they blame others. It's never their fault. But what is worse is the parents that spoil them, defend their actions, and act as proxies.
Yep, it sure sounds like this congressional leadership wanted compromise...
And then Boehner gets eviscerated by his own when he actually DOES try to compromise with the sitting President (during the budget negotiations).
Sounds like poorly behaved children to me. That's why this congress hovers round 10 percent approval.
Quote from: Gaspar on October 09, 2012, 08:31:36 AM
If Mr. Romney's only credential was that he was successful in working with a 89% liberal democrat state legislature amicably, ,
Completely false.
Romney fought the democrats on almost every issue while governor. He issued 844 vetoes of which almost all of them were overridden. His last year as governor his approval ratings was down to 34% He ended up just leaving the state to get away. He spent 212 days out of the state his last year in office.
This was from Mitt Romney's entry on wikipedia..."On a personal level, Romney mostly only dealt with the leadership of the state legislature, and rarely developed any political or social relationships with most of the members. Indeed, he failed to memorize the names and faces of all of them, and sometimes greeted them incorrectly as a result Legislators complained that he did not extend customary courtesies towards them..."
His staffers also went out of their way to hide their work form the public and the incoming admisistration. He decided that his staffers had the right to purchase the hard drives from their state-issued computers. When questioned on the subject in 2011, Romney responded that he had not wanted the information to be available to "opposition research teams."
Quote from: Gaspar on October 09, 2012, 08:31:36 AM
Check yourself.
Liberals should rejoice. They will probably get more of their programs passed or at least moved Forward! with Romney than with President Obama. He is the most amazing failure of a leader we've ever endured. The only thing he's been successful at is taking two political parties that both offer good ideas, with clear philosophical disagreement, and dividing them even further to the point where nothing functional can happen.
This president wasn't interested in progress through compromise, he was interested in plowing things through, or waiting until the last minute. . .until rash decisions were inevitable and bad decisions unavoidable. His concept of economics and his understanding of free markets was so idealistic that his own party was unwilling to entertain his budgetary proposals, that after analysis were deemed to be disastrous. Had he a sympathetic Congress, this country would be closer to bankruptcy than it already is.
When he couldn't' get 100% agreement, instead of compromise and negotiation, he sought ways outside, around, or beyond congress to accomplish his goals. His personality is that of a spoiled child, hiding behind anything and everything. Ready to blame anyone but himself. Throwing out flair and chaff, to avoid being pinned down. Talented at making his case, but only when prompted with talking points.
Poorly behaved children do not compromise. They do not admit when they've made a mistake. They whine, cry, and throw tantrums. In the worst cases, if they can't get what they want, they sneak it, and risk punishment. When caught, they blame others. It's never their fault. But what is worse is the parents that spoil them, defend their actions, and act as proxies.
You are describing the 8 years of Bush to a T. Both sides do a lot of that "pushing stuff through", or nothing would ever get done. We would never have even started health care help if it hadn't been bulldozed. And we never would have gone into Iraq if IT hadn't been bulldozed. Probably the biggest difference in things you mention is the fact that Bush's own party not only entertained budgetary policies that were disastrous, but got on board and helped pull the train!
Deep down inside, in your heart of hearts, do you really, honestly, and truly believe that the two unfunded wars, the uncompensated tax cuts, and a trillion dollar bailout of big banks is better than the path we have been pursuing for the last 4 years??
If you answer is yes, then I really worry for your company, 'cause it is in deep trouble....
The polarization of America has been complete since the 80's and no sign of it changing any time soon.
Why is it obstinate politics justification has to be retro? Can we bury the past and move ahead? Or is vindictiveness the way of a Christian society?
Quote from: Teatownclown on October 09, 2012, 10:05:11 AM
Why is it obstinate politics justification has to be retro? Can we bury the past and move ahead? Or is vindictiveness the way of a Christian society?
If you don't know the past, you can't avoid it. You know that...
We keep doing the same ignorant stuff over and over - and yes, that is both sides - because we DON'T know the past and learn from it. So, we have already fulfilled your fond desire and have buried the past. Moving ahead?? Depends....
Quote from: Gaspar on October 09, 2012, 08:31:36 AM
Compromise is not both sides screaming what they want. Compromise is both sides sitting down and negotiating an agreement. Good or bad, legislation needs to be voted on or worked through committee. Simply tabling the bills you agree or disagree with to avoid embarrassing defeat or passage, IS obstructionism. Holding legislation hostage rather than voting on it is not compromise.
I'm glad you understand what the House and Senate Republicans have been up to these last few years. You may note that one of the funnier accusations to come out recently was that the BLS report was cooked. The BLS, which has no political appointees at present because the Republicans keep filibustering them. I could almost buy the line that Republicans keep filibustering everything in sight and refusing to compromise because the Democrats are being assholes about it. But then I see the long delays in confirmation of the President's appointees and realize that no, it's just about being a pain in the donkey.
I will give them kudos for finally rationalizing the number of appointees who have to be confirmed by Congress, though. Only 20 or so of them dissented on that bill in the Senate.
Quote from: nathanm on October 08, 2012, 03:28:58 PM
That's what my friend's dad used to say. He was what today would just be considered an avid listener of Alex Jones. He was constantly going on about the New World Order, the concentration camps Bush and Clinton were building, and yes, martial law. He even bought into the "gold fringe on the flag equals martial law" thing. So forgive me if I don't believe people when they say that they're not paranoid.
Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you...
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 09, 2012, 03:35:01 PM
Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you...
I know that from personal experience. ;)
QuoteWEDNESDAY, OCT 10, 2012 11:44 AM CDT
Obama, Romney, and the bigotry gap
Both candidates face prejudice, but one side is far more willing to try to exploit it
BY DAVID SIROTA
http://www.salon.com/2012/10/10/obama_romney_and_the_bigotry_gap/
Saccharine paeans to tolerance and "post-racial" ideals aside, there remains no shortage of evidence that bigotry will play a major role in the 2012 election. For Mitt Romney to win, he must triumph over one in five voters who tell Gallup pollsters they will not vote for a Mormon candidate for president. For President Obama to get reelected, he must once again overcome pervasive prejudice in a nation that is both individually and institutionally racist — a nation that, according to Harvard and Google data, denied him up to 5 percent of the vote in 2008 because of his African-American heritage.
To be sure, it's impossible to definitively prove which form of bigotry will play a bigger role in the election outcome. While there is some evidence about which form of hate will be decisive in some voters' minds, there's simply no way to document which prejudice will most influence the overall outcome. However, one thing that's perfectly clear is that one side is far more willing to try to exploit bigotry than the other.
Here's the truth: When it comes to Romney's religion, you'd be hard–pressed to come up with many — if any — examples of widespread official or even unofficial efforts to stoke anti-Mormon sentiment in order to help President Obama. Indeed, the best, and most hilarious, attempt I've seen was by right-wingers trying to claim Obama's affinity for beer is actually an offensive method of criticizing Romney's teetotaling faith. Such claims are more than rich coming from a conservative political movement that regularly decries the so-called p.c. police for taking offense at behavior when offense is supposedly not warranted. In this sense, the right is doubling down on such fake outrage; after all, if conservatives now believe gulping down a lager is the new vanguard of intolerance in America, then they must believe NFL game days, New Year's Eve and college frat parties are secret nationwide exercises in religious bigotry.
By contrast, as the Christian Science Monitor noted in a March report documenting myriad examples of ugly and explicit clarion calls to Jim Crow sentiment, "Racism, in forms both overt and sly, appears to be rearing its head higher than in the 2008 election campaign." You can see that this bigotry comes from the top in the GOP's resurrection of the racialized welfare issue. From Rick Santorum saying, "I don't want to make black people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money," to Newt Gingrich calling Obama the "best food stamp president in American history," to the Romney campaign airing ads criticizing Obama for a welfare policy that Romney himself championed — ads that, the Washington Post reports, specifically "primed racial resentment" among viewers.
Now, with these wink-and-nod endorsements of the race card coming from the very highest reaches of the conservative establishment, we are seeing the right's grass-roots apparatus mobilize for an unprecedented (at least in modern times) mass appeal to the worst mix of racism, paranoia and conspiracy theory.
Last week, there was the latest iteration of the He's Just Too Black attack, featuring Tucker Carlson using an old Obama speech about Hurricane Katrina to slam the president for supposedly making "appeals to racial solidarity" and using a "phony" African American accent. This week, another right-wing website, World Net Daily is reporting in breathless and excitedly supportive fashion on a direct-to-voter crusade laced with even more overt bigotry:
Filmmaker Joel Gilbert has mailed 2.7 million copies of his full-length documentary "Dreams from My Real Father" to households in key swing states, with 1.5 million going to Florida, 700,000 to Colorado and 500,000 to Iowa. The mass distribution follows a mailing last month in which Gilbert sent 1.38 million DVDs of "Dreams from My Real Father" to households in swing state Ohio along with 100,000 to New Hampshire and 80,000 to Nevada...
Gilbert argues in the documentary that Frank Marshall Davis, the radical poet and journalist who was a card-carrying member of the Communist Party USA, was the real, biological and ideological father of Barack Obama, not Barack Obama, the Kenyan, who came from Africa in 1959 to attend the University of Hawaii in Honolulu...
"We can manufacture and ship 1 million DVDs per day out of Southern California," he explained.
Here we are getting the much-bigger-budget sequel to the original Manchurian Candidate story about Obama. During and immediately after the last election, conservatives in the dark shadows of talk radio and fringe magazines used the president's mixed-race heritage to manufacture allegations that he is a foreign-born Muslim revolutionary. This time around comes Manchurian Candidate II: Communist Bugaboo: a blockbuster production mass-marketed for optimal electoral influence, one that uses Obama's race to cast him in the role of Angry Radical Black Guy.
On the specifics of the allegations, Businessweek accurately summarized the explicit racial premise of the whole attack when it analyzed Gilbert's New York Post ad documenting his "findings."
"The only 'evidence' the ad provides is a pair of side-by-side photos of Obama and Davis, who bear no resemblance to each other aside from the fact that both men are black and, in the photos, are facing the same direction," the magazine wrote. In other words, the grotesque logic is that since Davis and Obama are both black and both of them knew each other, Obama must be Davis' son. As visual evidence for such a preposterous logic, we have a side-by-side display of photographs aimed at convincing onlookers to succumb to racist impulses telling them that all black men — even ones as aesthetically different as Davis and Obama — somehow look alike.
Of course, those like Gilbert and others trying to racialize the 2012 election will claim that the real conspiracy theorists are those criticizing them. Like all purveyors of dog-whistle racism in the past, they will say their efforts have nothing to do with bigotry and everything to do with just "getting the facts out." But their efforts are obviously right out of Lee Atwater's Republican playbook.
"You start out in 1954 by saying, '******, ******, ******,'" said the late GOP strategist. "By 1968 you can't say '******' — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites."
That's what this is all about: using coded language to manufacture a plausible deniability about conservative bigotry. Until Republican leaders publicly repudiate it, that kind of prejudice will continue to define American politics — in 2012 and beyond.
So says the biggest bigot on TNF.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 23, 2012, 09:15:02 AM
So says the biggest bigot on TNF.
LOL....whitey, I only exploit cults. Remember, not all religions are alike.
Quote from: Teatownclown on October 23, 2012, 10:38:31 AM
LOL....whitey, I only exploit cults. Remember, not all religions are alike.
Rome considered Christianity a cult.
Quote from: Townsend on October 23, 2012, 10:43:36 AM
Rome considered Christianity a cult.
So do those today outside of the Empire.... some people just aren't superstitious.
Quote from: Townsend on October 23, 2012, 10:43:36 AM
Rome considered Christianity a cult.
Until Rome embraced it, co-opted it, and made it their own. Holy Roman Empire and all that....
Kind of....no, exactly like what has happened to the Republican party in the last couple of decades.