Especially since Glenn Beck blew his cover.
Glenn Beck wants suicide bombers to blow themselves up! Outrage rabble rabble!
Apparently!
Religion is a big deal in US politics. And especially the Republicans have made it a big deal (as in: you get called a terrorist if you don't believe what they believe in. Or as in: massive natural disasters or mass shootings happens because (other) Americans have offended God with their tolerance of 'the Gay' and abortions). And you had a guy in the White House for 8 years who invaded another country because he thought God told him to do it.
So yes, what someone believes in, also what someone's religious believes are, is all 'fair game'. In the US, unfortunately, it affects a lot of people's lives.
So, if Ann Romney's parry to the request of some tax-returns is: "Romney donates 10% of his income to his cult; he's much better than you people!", then I can talk about that cult. And note their magic underwear. Their baptisms after death. The fact that Joe Smith was a convicted con man, and that this was just another of his swindles. And I can question if a man who feels himself 'guided' by such idiocy is really the best man for the job of the presidency.
You see, I can do that in a free society. One that isn't under threat of the inquisition, or a religious mob with torches. I can discuss the beliefs and opinions of someone who puts himself in the public eye in order to gain high public office. And if he believes something stupid, and this is apparently his set of guiding principles in life, I can call him out on that!
You know, like the Republicans have done time and time again with Obama. Or how they would do if a Mormon Democrat would be running for president.
(Quite frankly I think it is very interesting theatre how the Republicans are currently twisting themselves into all kinds of strange contortions trying to make themselves believe that Romney is their man. Not least because of his Mormonism!)
This is your entire argument. Right there. One paragraph. That's all you needed. And you could have done much better if you had not gone off the deep end. Like Glenn Beck you started out mild, then got long winded, and now starting to go off of the deep end with the accusations.
No one was telling you that you can't debate another in a free society. Untwist your panties and learn some brevity in your posts already.
Last edited by Keorythe; July 21 2012 at 05:22:23 PM.
Someone needs to start an investigation into the Christian infiltration of the federal government.
Someone already has:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fel..._organization)
meh
roh roh, fight da mirror powah
Federation Horticultural Corps
Seems that Mittens is purchasing twitter followers
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/com..._mitt_romneys/
Best joke so far: Fake Twitter followers are people, my friend.
That just Romney being a "job creator". Some twenty-something in hipster glasses comes to Romney campaign and presents himself as "social media political consultant". The pitch is that for a few million dollars he will make hundreds of thousands of "young demo" to follow Mitt's campaign, which will then be touted by CNN as "Romney has appeal amongst young voters, just look at those Twitter numbers". Fake Twitter accounts are created, millions transfer hands, some hookers have extra clients.
Finally, some much needed job-boosting legislative efforts from the Republican Congress:
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-...esident-reaganRep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) is floating legislation that would name most U.S. coastal waters after former President Ronald Reagan.
Issa reintroduced his bill Wednesday to rename the country’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), which generally extends from three miles to 200 miles offshore, as the Ronald Wilson Reagan Exclusive Economic Zone.
Well if he is going to discuss religion in reference to comparing others beliefs one must formulate a victimization mentality for one side of the debate while painting another as insane. Otherwise there is a severe possibility that people might discuss other people as people. We can't have that.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...rs?ft=1&f=1001
A new report from the Congressional Budget Office finds that the Supreme Court ruling on President Obama's health care law will save the government $84 billion over the next 11 years.
While the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Healthcare Act, it also said it was up to states to choose whether to participate in an expansion of Medicaid.
That $84 billion in savings, the non-partisan CBO explained, comes from predictions that fewer states will enroll in the program.
"ACA will have a net cost of $1,168 billion over the 2012–2022 period — compared with $1,252 billion projected in March 2012 for that 11-year period — for a net reduction of $84 billion," the CBO said explaining its math.
roh roh, fight da mirror powah
Federation Horticultural Corps
Bookmarks