DNC (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter PapaG
- Start date
Welcome to our community
Be a part of something great, join today!
3RA1N1AC
00110110 00111001
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2008
- Messages
- 20,918
- Likes
- 5,168
- Points
- 113
this is kinda silly
not that mormonism is THAT goofy, but would you want a scientologist president? a satanist? one of those weirdos that doesnt believe in hospitals? or technology?
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2008
- Messages
- 34,557
- Likes
- 25,731
- Points
- 113
Well, I guess you can separate goofy harmful beliefs from goofy harmless beliefs. Believing in any of the major religions isn't any less goofy than believing that all women with brown hair should be exterminated, but it is a lot less harmful.
I'd rank candidates thusly: no goofy beliefs > harmless goofy beliefs > harmful goofy beliefs
barfo
I'd rank candidates thusly: no goofy beliefs > harmless goofy beliefs > harmful goofy beliefs
barfo
jlprk
The ESPN mod is insane.
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2009
- Messages
- 30,672
- Likes
- 8,852
- Points
- 113
You haven't defined the key word. That word is obviously "harmless" since we all agree on "goofy." What if a president has harmless goofy beliefs, but others follow his example, and make them harmful?
For example, Bush had the harmless belief that he should kill a million Iraqis and open 50 torture centers worldwide. No problem, but then rogue midlevel management caused 6000 American servicemen to die in the war. They converted his innocent harmless belief into one harmful to Americans who were over there doing the killing. It's similar to the dog eat dog trickle down problem of, how can Goofy train Pluto to roll over?
Wow. Pot meet kettle? Something has been clouding your judgment about Mormons for a long time now and causing you to make clouded and biased statements about Mormonism. Maybe you should lay off whatever kool aid you've been drinking? What exactly about Mormonism (since I can read between the lines when you say cult) leads you to believe we have clouded judgment and "fucked up" ideals? Our ideals are family, financial stability, working hard and honestly, supporting your community, volunteering, and many other traits I would assume any rational person would think is anything but "fucked up." And for all our clouded judgment, Mormons do pretty well academically and business wise. I guess we're able to not only survive but thrive despite our glaring mental deficiency that allows us to have differing views on religious theology. I guess it's just dumb luck...
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2008
- Messages
- 46,263
- Likes
- 35,379
- Points
- 113
working hard? families? supporting communities? volunteering?
are you just bat shit crazy! that's crazy talk.
jlprk
The ESPN mod is insane.
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2009
- Messages
- 30,672
- Likes
- 8,852
- Points
- 113
Mormons have to battle 3 opponents on message boards.
1. Christians and Jews who are jealous of this new upstart rival for their members.
2. Atheists who find more weaknesses in 19th century events than in events of 2000 years ago.
3. Monogamists who are jealous of the few polygamous Mormons.
1. Christians and Jews who are jealous of this new upstart rival for their members.
2. Atheists who find more weaknesses in 19th century events than in events of 2000 years ago.
3. Monogamists who are jealous of the few polygamous Mormons.
- Joined
- May 24, 2007
- Messages
- 73,117
- Likes
- 10,950
- Points
- 113
Speaking of actual cults:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/sep/2/rev-sun-myung-moon-founder-times-dies-92/
Rev. Moon, Times founder, dies at 92
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/sep/2/rev-sun-myung-moon-founder-times-dies-92/
Rev. Moon, Times founder, dies at 92
MickZagger
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2008
- Messages
- 37,563
- Likes
- 16,573
- Points
- 113
Republican's are up in arms about an Obama birth certificate, yet they want a Mormon in the White House....
Mormon's think Native American's are of Jewish descendants, they wear holy underwear and didn't let black people in their cult until 1978. I'll pass on Romney. No kool-aid drinking, cult worshipper's as my President. No thanks.
It doesn't make me a bigot. I have Mormon friends, I just think their logic is jaded.
Mormon's think Native American's are of Jewish descendants, they wear holy underwear and didn't let black people in their cult until 1978. I'll pass on Romney. No kool-aid drinking, cult worshipper's as my President. No thanks.
It doesn't make me a bigot. I have Mormon friends, I just think their logic is jaded.
MickZagger
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2008
- Messages
- 37,563
- Likes
- 16,573
- Points
- 113
- Joined
- May 24, 2007
- Messages
- 73,117
- Likes
- 10,950
- Points
- 113
Democrats love their Mormons, too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Reid
As Senate Majority Leader and a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Harry Reid has achieved a more senior elected position in the United States government than any Mormon in history. Also, if he completes his term as Senate Majority Leader of the 112th Congress, he will be one of only six senators to serve at least six years as Majority Leader along with Mike Mansfield, Alben Barkley, Lyndon Johnson, Robert Byrd, and George Mitchell.
MickZagger
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2008
- Messages
- 37,563
- Likes
- 16,573
- Points
- 113
He must not be a very good Mormon if he's a Democrat...
- Joined
- May 24, 2007
- Messages
- 73,117
- Likes
- 10,950
- Points
- 113
FIFY
jlprk
The ESPN mod is insane.
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2009
- Messages
- 30,672
- Likes
- 8,852
- Points
- 113
Why isn't this bigger news? This man has been a major conservative force in the U.S. for 40 years. He was famous in 1974, then the American media was silenced about him. So much, that when I questioned your citing the Moonie paper, you didn't know what I was talking about.
- Joined
- May 24, 2007
- Messages
- 73,117
- Likes
- 10,950
- Points
- 113
Silly person. I have known about all the news media outlets owned by the Rev. Moon for decades.
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2008
- Messages
- 127,351
- Likes
- 147,876
- Points
- 115
Denny has owned www.MoonyTwo.com for years.
BTW he's looking for Moony Mods if anyone is interested.
TripTango
Quick First Step
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 3,235
- Likes
- 95
- Points
- 48
This is a much more diplomatic response. Although I personally think the birth certificate thing is a lame duck argument, I fail to see how someone's Constitutional eligibility for the presidency correlates with someone's religious beliefs.
The "holy underwear" isn't much different than wearing a cross around my neck, a yamaka on my head, a nun's habit, a priest's collar, a hijab, a turban (for some), etc. I just decide to do it under my clothes instead of in front of everyone. It's a sign of my religious commitment.
You've misspoken about African Americans. They've always been allowed in the church. It's the Priesthood they were denied, which is admittedly an important part of the religion, but not the same thing as barring them from the faith wholesale.
jlprk
The ESPN mod is insane.
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2009
- Messages
- 30,672
- Likes
- 8,852
- Points
- 113
The Moonies were in the papers a lot in the mid-70s, an embarrassment to conservatives. So the mass media stopped talking about them, and now we have a generation or two who have never heard of them.
They owned the #2 newspaper in Washington, D.C. and thus were very influential over powerful people there. Denny cites the Washington Times regularly. Here's one.
http://sportstwo.com/threads/197878-WOLF-Barack-Obama’s-remedial-math-lesson?highlight=moonie
They owned the #2 newspaper in Washington, D.C. and thus were very influential over powerful people there. Denny cites the Washington Times regularly. Here's one.
http://sportstwo.com/threads/197878-WOLF-Barack-Obama’s-remedial-math-lesson?highlight=moonie
Masbee
-- Rookie of the Year
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2008
- Messages
- 2,856
- Likes
- 97
- Points
- 48
No but it does make SlyPokerDog a bigot.
Last edited by a moderator:
maxiep
RIP Dr. Jack
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2008
- Messages
- 28,321
- Likes
- 5,919
- Points
- 113
What I find a little creepy is the convention logo. It's a riff off of the Obama logo. He may be the nominee, but it's not about him. It's about the Democratic Party and the country. It's what the President can do for the people. It's not about President Obama.
Here's the logo (I think the middle silhouette is the President)
Here's the logo (I think the middle silhouette is the President)
MickZagger
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2008
- Messages
- 37,563
- Likes
- 16,573
- Points
- 113
Lets not resort to name calling.
I'm not a bigot because I don't want a Mormon in the White House. Does that make all the Tea Party people bigots because they don't want a Mormon in the White House, either?
Last edited by a moderator:
MickZagger
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2008
- Messages
- 37,563
- Likes
- 16,573
- Points
- 113
Clinton was a great President. His speech praising Obama will just be the cherry on top of another term for Obama.
MickZagger
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2008
- Messages
- 37,563
- Likes
- 16,573
- Points
- 113
The Democrats have no problem putting their last president before Obama out there(Clinton).
The Republicans would have put George W Bush out there but......oh yeah
George W Bush served two freaking terms and....nothing! He doesn't exist anymore!
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2008
- Messages
- 46,263
- Likes
- 35,379
- Points
- 113
It's interesting to think that Republicans say "quit blaming Bush" (which the amount of they are exaggerating), but they themselves didn't even bother to invite him to the convention.
They totally could've spun things to make him out to be a valuable asset.
Even they know that he was a horrible president whose policies (and wars) put us in the situation we're in. As much as they want to try to blame Obama for it (either by saying his "policies" have ruined America...which they haven't, especially since he hasn't done much, or by saying that things that were not his own doing was his doing), they know what the results would be if they invited or highlighted Bush.
MARIS61
Real American
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2008
- Messages
- 28,007
- Likes
- 5,012
- Points
- 113
Since PapaG wants to talk sand castles and their relationship to Presidential candidates, let's keep this on topic:
http://legalplanet.wordpress.com/20...tles-based-on-fantasy-oil-and-gas-production/
Is Romney Building Sand Castles Based on Fantasy Oil and Gas Production?
August 24, 2012
tags: 2012, oil and gas development, Romney energy plan
by Dan Farber
I posted yesterday about Romney’s energy plan, which makes some remarkable claims about future energy production and its economic benefits. If you look at the sources cited by the campaign to support this plan, the campaign seems to rely heavily on Citigroup report called Energy 2020: North America, the New Middle East?. A number of their other sources are basically just touting the Citigroup report.
I’m planning to dig into Citigroup’s economic projections more, but there also seem to be real questions about their energy projections. At least, some very credible questions have been raised about their optimistic projections for future energy production. In fact, the report raised some questions even in business circles:
“Whether the report proves prescient or just another starry-eyed fantasy remains to be seen.”
Wall Street Journal
The Oil Drum carefully reviews Citigroup’s projections about future production. The conclusion is that they’re wildly optimistic. Here’s an example:
Source: North Dakota Oil and Gas Agency
Citigroup uses the light blue “possible” line. Basing your planning what you think may be possible is a bit risky, and I have to wonder if they make their own investment decisions and advise their clients on a similarly optimistic basis.
Another key point to see about this graph is that each line shows a decline after the initial surge. This is really a key point. As the Oil Drum p0ints out, the “declining production from existing and future wells that appears to be neglected in the Citigroup study.”
The reason is fairly simple:
Those plays which will yield rapidly in generating high initial well production will, in turn, be the first that decline significantly and need replacement. Yet replacement will, over time, have to be in poorer parts of the formation, requiring that multiple wells replace the initial producer, and so bounds on production will be reached, likely before the end of the decade. Citigroup anticipates that the risks in development of the shale plays, whether in Texas or California, come as much from an inability to transport the oil generated and from environmental policy; they see few geological risks – which is a pity, since it is the geology that will control production and its decline, and the ultimate profitability of these ventures.
http://legalplanet.wordpress.com/20...tles-based-on-fantasy-oil-and-gas-production/
Is Romney Building Sand Castles Based on Fantasy Oil and Gas Production?
August 24, 2012
tags: 2012, oil and gas development, Romney energy plan
by Dan Farber
I posted yesterday about Romney’s energy plan, which makes some remarkable claims about future energy production and its economic benefits. If you look at the sources cited by the campaign to support this plan, the campaign seems to rely heavily on Citigroup report called Energy 2020: North America, the New Middle East?. A number of their other sources are basically just touting the Citigroup report.
I’m planning to dig into Citigroup’s economic projections more, but there also seem to be real questions about their energy projections. At least, some very credible questions have been raised about their optimistic projections for future energy production. In fact, the report raised some questions even in business circles:
“Whether the report proves prescient or just another starry-eyed fantasy remains to be seen.”
Wall Street Journal
The Oil Drum carefully reviews Citigroup’s projections about future production. The conclusion is that they’re wildly optimistic. Here’s an example:
Source: North Dakota Oil and Gas Agency
Citigroup uses the light blue “possible” line. Basing your planning what you think may be possible is a bit risky, and I have to wonder if they make their own investment decisions and advise their clients on a similarly optimistic basis.
Another key point to see about this graph is that each line shows a decline after the initial surge. This is really a key point. As the Oil Drum p0ints out, the “declining production from existing and future wells that appears to be neglected in the Citigroup study.”
The reason is fairly simple:
Those plays which will yield rapidly in generating high initial well production will, in turn, be the first that decline significantly and need replacement. Yet replacement will, over time, have to be in poorer parts of the formation, requiring that multiple wells replace the initial producer, and so bounds on production will be reached, likely before the end of the decade. Citigroup anticipates that the risks in development of the shale plays, whether in Texas or California, come as much from an inability to transport the oil generated and from environmental policy; they see few geological risks – which is a pity, since it is the geology that will control production and its decline, and the ultimate profitability of these ventures.
