Is it really necessary to make a post this get this personal even in a political thread? In my opinion this type of vitriol is over the line and uncalled for.
Now I am lost, who did I get personal with?
[This message has been edited by partfiero (edited 07-04-2012).]
IP: Logged
06:29 PM
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35467 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
The young grashopper has lots to learn if he wants to remain on this forum.
I don't know if he thought I was gay bashing or what. Can't figure it out. My point was that Romney may have evolved on his take on health care like Obama did on gay marriage. For I know when someone on the left changes his mind on an issue, evolved is used, when it is someone on the right, it is called flip-flopping.
If he thought it was gay bashing then he must be running around with a chip on his shoulder. He should spend a few days pouring through the hundred or so threads on the subject, then he could see I have never posted in one of them. I have not formed an opinion on the subject at all.
IP: Logged
09:33 PM
Toddster Member
Posts: 20871 From: Roswell, Georgia Registered: May 2001
Sorry the quote below yours was what I intended to quote not sure how I missed it was
quote
no, you can't remember. Is it really that hard to check google before making yourself look uninformed. Ruth Bader Ginsberg was an ACLU lawyer, not Kagen. Maybe you should stick to sucking dick for money.
Kisses!
IP: Logged
09:46 PM
partfiero Member
Posts: 6923 From: Tucson, Arizona Registered: Jan 2002
Could it be everyone is getting tired of the entire process and the poor selections presented as rival candidates? For years I have seen the office change from r to d and back, and every time I expect to see the incoming throw out the predecessors changes, but no, it always stays the same... It is like they follow orders from someone or something with a little more power?
IP: Logged
01:17 AM
Rickady88GT Member
Posts: 10648 From: Central CA Registered: Dec 2002
For the same reason I would say something if someone started in on Baptists or Jewish people. They have a right to beleive what they want! Just as you have a right to beleive what you want! Why is it up to you to decide that what they beleive is wrong? Are you the Judge? Are you supposed to be the Judge others according to your religion (assuming you have one)? Does not (assuming you have one) your religion teach live and let live? Or is that only live and let live so long as they beleive the same as you? Let people have the freedom the Constitution gave them is all I'm getting at. Why must you condemn them for something you (assuming you have a religion) expect others to not condemn you for?
You spent all this on your opinion, where is the debate on the topic of mormanism? I could care less about happy go lucky crap (I know good people that are morman), give me the meat of the story. Where am I wrong on mormanism? Shut up if you dont have answeres. Give me a credible debate if you can validete the crap they preach. I am not bashing any person that says they are morman, I am bashing the teachings of smith. I gave you a little bit of what they preach. Prove me wrong or get out of the way and this thread can go on without us sidetracking it.
IP: Logged
02:53 AM
Jul 6th, 2012
Khw Member
Posts: 11139 From: South Weber, UT. U.S.A. Registered: Jun 2008
You spent all this on your opinion, where is the debate on the topic of mormanism? I could care less about happy go lucky crap (I know good people that are morman), give me the meat of the story. Where am I wrong on mormanism? Shut up if you dont have answeres. Give me a credible debate if you can validete the crap they preach. I am not bashing any person that says they are morman, I am bashing the teachings of smith. I gave you a little bit of what they preach. Prove me wrong or get out of the way and this thread can go on without us sidetracking it.
You see the problem is it's anti-morman propaganda. That's like showing pro-nazi propaganda and saying prove it wrong, it's already wrong to begin with. However, it's obvious you won't take my word for it. I've already identified the producer of it for you, which I'm betting you didn't know. Now I will tell you what the excerpt was pulled from. It was pulled from a production of Ed Deckers called The God Makers. Now, what did The non-denomination National Council of Christians and Jews write about it?
quote
The film does not - in our opinion - fairly portray the Mormon Church, Mormon history, or Mormon belief. It makes extensive use of "half-truth," faulty generalizations, erroneous interpretations, and sensationalism. It is not reflective of the genuine spirit of the Mormon faith.
We find particularly offensive the emphasis in the film that Mormonism is some sort of subversive plot - a danger to the community, a threat to the institution of marriage, and is destructive to the mental health of teenagers. All of our experience with our Mormon neighbors provides eloquent refutation of these charges.
We are of the opinion that The Godmakers relies heavily on appeals to fear, prejudice and other less worthy human emotions. We believe that continued use of this film poses genuine danger to the climate of good will and harmony which currently exists between…neighbors of differing faiths. It appears to us to be a basically unfair and untruthful presentation of what Mormons really believe and practice
But whatever, believe the propaganda. Be uninformed, it fits you. When you want to really know what they teach, attend the church for awhile, you don't have to be a member to sit in on Sacrament and the classes afterwards. Get yourself some first hand knowledge of what they are teaching rather then relying on Mormon bashing videos.
[This message has been edited by Khw (edited 07-06-2012).]
IP: Logged
01:28 AM
Rickady88GT Member
Posts: 10648 From: Central CA Registered: Dec 2002
But whatever, believe the propaganda. Be uninformed, it fits you. When you want to really know what they teach, attend the church for awhile, you don't have to be a member to sit in on Sacrament and the classes afterwards. Get yourself some first hand knowledge of what they are teaching rather then relying on Mormon bashing videos.
Not even one single example of where the God makers is wrong. Just a bunch of flufy politically correct junk. I guess I will just have to see if a mormanism thread ever pops up.
IP: Logged
12:37 PM
Jul 7th, 2012
Khw Member
Posts: 11139 From: South Weber, UT. U.S.A. Registered: Jun 2008
Not even one single example of where the God makers is wrong. Just a bunch of flufy politically correct junk. I guess I will just have to see if a mormanism thread ever pops up.
An example? Sure. Let's take this statement.
quote
Originally posted by Rickady88GT:
People may have a hard time voteing for a Chief that openly admits that he will be the god of his own planit
Do Latter-day Saints believe that they will “be God of their own planet”?
No. This idea is not taught in Latter-day Saint scripture, nor is it a doctrine of the Church. This misunderstanding stems from speculative comments unreflective of scriptural doctrine. Mormons believe that we are all sons and daughters of God and that all of us have the potential to grow during and after this life to become like our Heavenly Father (see Romans 8:16-17). The Church does not and has never purported to fully understand the specifics of Christ’s statement that “in my Father’s house are many mansions” (John 14:2).
Q: Does the Mormon Church believe in the existence of another physical planet or planets, where Mormons will "rule" after their death and ascension?
A: No.
Q: Does the Mormon Church believe its followers can become "gods and goddesses" after death?
A: We believe that the apostle Peter’s biblical reference to partaking of the divine nature and the apostle Paul’s reference to being 'joint heirs with Christ' reflect the intent that children of God should strive to emulate their Heavenly Father in every way. Throughout the eternities, Mormons believe, they will reverence and worship God the Father and Jesus Christ. The goal is not to equal them or to achieve parity with them but to imitate and someday acquire their perfect goodness, love and other divine attributes.
Really, there is no reason you can't look this stuff up yourself, aside from laziness or just being unwilling to let go of the hatred you feel towards them because you want to believe the propaganda. Are there things they believe that differ from others? Of course there are but then that is true within ALL the Christian sects out there. Granted, one major difference the LDS have with the others is they believe the God heed are 3 seperate entities in one purpose rather then one entity in one purpose. Pre-canonization that really wasn't a uncommon belief though.
Anyways, I have a life to lead and I'm not going to waste anymore of my time on derisory propaganda pecies. Believe what you want though because obviously, [sarcasm] it's on Youtube so it must be true! [/sarcasm]
IP: Logged
02:06 AM
PFF
System Bot
cliffw Member
Posts: 35951 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
Originally posted by Rickady88GT: I think it is about his religion? A lot of people think mormanism is to far out there to suport a leader that follows it?
Could be. I don't think so. Or I can't see it. I am not a Mormon. My lack of enthusiasm for Romney is paled by my fear of another four years. Which is what makes me enthused about Romney.
"This is a man without a core, a man without substance, a man that will say anything to become president of the United States."
Rudy Giuliani uttered these harsh words when describing Mitt Romney eight months ago. But then, four months later, Giuliani endorsed Romney.
Is Giuliani correct? Is Romney truly a man "without a core"? The simple answer: No. Romney has a distinct core -- not that of a politician, but of a CEO.
What do I mean? We have become accustomed in these highly partisan times to politicians who adhere rigidly to their ideological positions. They don't change their views to attract supporters. Rather, they want voters to agree with the positions they advocate.
In contrast, a CEO is not shackled by ideology. A CEO's success is measured by the bottom line, not by how many principles he or she sticks to.
To the CEO, if a product is not selling, you don't stick with it until the product destroys your business. Instead, you tweak it. You rebrand it. You try a new slogan or new packaging. And if people are still not buying it, like New Coke, you drop it. You regroup, come up with a new product and then start selling again.
But then, this may prove to be a problem for Romney...
[This message has been edited by yellowstone (edited 07-08-2012).]
IP: Logged
06:49 PM
82-T/A [At Work] Member
Posts: 22791 From: Florida USA Registered: Aug 2002
