Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rick Santorum (please, don't Google his last name) is the funniest not-Romney yet

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by ERCougar View Post
    T about

    Individuals are not prohibited from feeling uncomfortable with a candidates race either.

    I don't disagree with your point about mormons, but this isn't a very compelling argument.
    I'm not making an argument, I'm trying to explain why the entire issue isnt compelling. There is no story to be found in evangelics not wanting to vote for Mormons. The entire issue is uninteresting which is why nobody is making a smoking gun dossier to run a front page spread in the Washington Post.
    Fitter. Happier. More Productive.

    sigpic

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Pelado View Post
      RP has great production quality. His campaign ads always hit the mark.
      Once Santorum is out Romney will be next.
      "If there is one thing I am, it's always right." -Ted Nugent.
      "I honestly believe saying someone is a smart lawyer is damning with faint praise. The smartest people become engineers and scientists." -SU.
      "Yet I still see wisdom in that which Uncle Ted posts." -creek.
      GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

      Comment


      • Originally posted by TripletDaddy View Post

        This reminds me of when you tried to talk about venture capital a month or so ago.
        that was a conv abt private equity. Until now I thought you knew the difference. (yes, yes, it was sparked by Perry's "vulture capital" foray but it was abt Romney's career in PE).


        Originally posted by TripletDaddy View Post
        Now you want to talk about legal discrimination.
        I do? An action can be "discriminatory" or "prejudicial" on a social / cultural level w/o falling under the legal definition.
        Ute-ī sunt fīmī differtī

        It can't all be wedding cake.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by oxcoug View Post

          I do? An action can be "discriminatory" or "prejudicial" on a social / cultural level w/o falling under the legal definition.
          so you are proposing that this alleged conspiracy doesn't rise to the legal definition of discrimination, yet you wonder why major media outlets haven't put together an exposé on the matter?

          Why doesn't FORA cover this story?
          Fitter. Happier. More Productive.

          sigpic

          Comment


          • Originally posted by TripletDaddy View Post
            You aren't debating with me. Apparently all the newspaper outlets agree with me so there isn't much debate.

            Good luck putting together your dossier.
            Have you been taking lessons from SU?
            Dio perdona tante cose per un’opera di misericordia
            God forgives many things for an act of mercy
            Alessandro Manzoni

            Knock it off. This board has enough problems without a dose of middle-age lechery.

            pelagius

            Comment


            • Originally posted by TripletDaddy View Post
              I'm not making an argument, I'm trying to explain why the entire issue isnt compelling. There is no story to be found in evangelics not wanting to vote for Mormons. The entire issue is uninteresting which is why nobody is making a smoking gun dossier to run a front page spread in the Washington Post.
              I guess I give the American public enough credit that I think it would be compelling to see a coordinated movement of religious bigotry. Romney should have to answer for a lot of things tied to his religion--sexism, answering to a prophet, anti-intellectualism/anti-science bias, etc--but not how he views God. I suspect that this isn't the basis of the evangelical attack, chiefly because their ground is even shakier on these points. They hate him because he's Mormon. It's the definition of religious bigotry (and yes, Mormons are guilty of it too).
              At least the Big Ten went after a big-time addition in Nebraska; the Pac-10 wanted a game so badly, it added Utah
              -Berry Trammel, 12/3/10

              Comment


              • Originally posted by ERCougar View Post
                I guess I give the American public enough credit that I think it would be compelling to see a coordinated movement of religious bigotry. Romney should have to answer for a lot of things tied to his religion--sexism, answering to a prophet, anti-intellectualism/anti-science bias, etc--but not how he views God. I suspect that this isn't the basis of the evangelical attack, chiefly because their ground is even shakier on these points. They hate him because he's Mormon. It's the definition of religious bigotry (and yes, Mormons are guilty of it too).
                I think we are speaking past each other. I don't think i disagree with your post. My question remains the same....namely, where is the story? Why is it newsworthy to say that evangelicals don't like Mos and Mos are equally exclusionary?

                Actually, one minor issue with your post. You want to give credit to the American public yet it is the same American public that is rejecting Romney. How much of Romney's troubles will be pinned on evangelicals? He is losing Michigan. This has become a national trend. As I suggested before, maybe Mitt isn't likable. That is also an important factor that shouldn't be ignored and should be explored prior to general accusations of discrimination.

                Anyhow, my initial response was to the shock that Mormons had not put together a dossier of hate exposing evangelical bigotry towards Mormons. I still don't see the story there. And as you indicate, it would open up a massive can of worms for Romney, given that Mos are guilty of depreciating the religious beliefs of others.
                Fitter. Happier. More Productive.

                sigpic

                Comment


                • I'm not voting for Santorum because I don't think he's a Christian....at least in the way I define the term.
                  "Discipleship is not a spectator sport. We cannot expect to experience the blessing of faith by standing inactive on the sidelines any more than we can experience the benefits of health by sitting on a sofa watching sporting events on television and giving advice to the athletes. And yet for some, “spectator discipleship” is a preferred if not primary way of worshipping." -Pres. Uchtdorf

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by TripletDaddy View Post
                    I think we are speaking past each other. I don't think i disagree with your post. My question remains the same....namely, where is the story? Why is it newsworthy to say that evangelicals don't like Mos and Mos are equally exclusionary?

                    Actually, one minor issue with your post. You want to give credit to the American public yet it is the same American public that is rejecting Romney. How much of Romney's troubles will be pinned on evangelicals? He is losing Michigan. This has become a national trend. As I suggested before, maybe Mitt isn't likable. That is also an important factor that shouldn't be ignored and should be explored prior to general accusations of discrimination.

                    Anyhow, my initial response was to the shock that Mormons had not put together a dossier of hate exposing evangelical bigotry towards Mormons. I still don't see the story there. And as you indicate, it would open up a massive can of worms for Romney, given that Mos are guilty of depreciating the religious beliefs of others.
                    You initially made two points: 1) that Americans aren't prohibited from voting based on religious grounds and 2) Americans apparently aren't "down with Mormonism". Well, for years, Americans weren't down with black/Jewish/Catholic people and nothing prohibited them from voting based on this bigotry, but does that make the point any less compelling? Does the fact that this was only sporadically mentioned by a few mean that they should just have just shut up about it already?

                    Yes, Romney may just not be likable, but that's also beside the point. Viking and ox think it would be interesting to see if there is another factor at play. If there isn't, great--no bigotry. If there is, it should be pointed out. The average primary voter is looking for a guy that can beat Obama. They assume that when Santorum gains momentum, it's for a legitimate reason, and not due to a coordinated bigotry campaign that's not going to play outside of a relatively smaller circle of evangelical voters in the general election.

                    No, I don't think Romney should be behind this exposition, nor do I think ox or viking suggested as much. Let someone else do it. And let someone else expose the Mormons for Romney, as far as it exists. Of course, I haven't heard calls over the pulpit to vote for Romney--have you? It probably exists on some level, but now we're definitely getting into the territory of "not very compelling".
                    At least the Big Ten went after a big-time addition in Nebraska; the Pac-10 wanted a game so badly, it added Utah
                    -Berry Trammel, 12/3/10

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Moliere View Post
                      I'm not voting for Santorum because I don't think he's a Christian....at least in the way I define the term.
                      Yup. I am not voting for Santorum because I think his social conservative religious beliefs are crazy.
                      Dyslexics are teople poo...

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by ERCougar View Post
                        You initially made two points: 1) that Americans aren't prohibited from voting based on religious grounds and 2) Americans apparently aren't "down with Mormonism". Well, for years, Americans weren't down with black/Jewish/Catholic people and nothing prohibited them from voting based on this bigotry, but does that make the point any less compelling? Does the fact that this was only sporadically mentioned by a few mean that they should just have just shut up about it already?

                        Yes, Romney may just not be likable, but that's also beside the point. Viking and ox think it would be interesting to see if there is another factor at play. If there isn't, great--no bigotry. If there is, it should be pointed out. The average primary voter is looking for a guy that can beat Obama. They assume that when Santorum gains momentum, it's for a legitimate reason, and not due to a coordinated bigotry campaign that's not going to play outside of a relatively smaller circle of evangelical voters in the general election.

                        No, I don't think Romney should be behind this exposition, nor do I think ox or viking suggested as much. Let someone else do it. And let someone else expose the Mormons for Romney, as far as it exists. Of course, I haven't heard calls over the pulpit to vote for Romney--have you? It probably exists on some level, but now we're definitely getting into the territory of "not very compelling".
                        Ive only made one point...that this story isn't interesting enough to merit an exposé. The factors I gave were in support of my point. If people want to be shocked that this issue hasn't been exposed in the national media, by all means, go ahead and be shocked. I'm thinking that the national media doesn't find it very compelling, either, but maybe I'm off and we can expect to see a big WashPo spread on evangelicals not liking Mormons. I doubt it, personally.

                        I haven't heard the Church endorse Romney but of course I've heard pro Romney/anti democratic sentiment at Church. But as you stated, comments made at Chuurch aren't very compelling. Which is why comments made by evangelical pastors at Church are not being picked up by the national media, either. If the worldwide leadership of the Evangelical movement were to publicly denounce Romney, I bet that would get picked up by the national media, though.
                        Fitter. Happier. More Productive.

                        sigpic

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by TripletDaddy View Post
                          Ive only made one point...that this story isn't interesting enough to merit an exposé. The factors I gave were in support of my point. If people want to be shocked that this issue hasn't been exposed in the national media, by all means, go ahead and be shocked. I'm thinking that the national media doesn't find it very compelling, either, but maybe I'm off and we can expect to see a big WashPo spread on evangelicals not liking Mormons. I doubt it, personally.

                          I haven't heard the Church endorse Romney but of course I've heard pro Romney/anti democratic sentiment at Church. But as you stated, comments made at Chuurch aren't very compelling. Which is why comments made by evangelical pastors at Church are not being picked up by the national media, either. If the worldwide leadership of the Evangelical movement were to publicly denounce Romney, I bet that would get picked up by the national media, though.
                          Neither of your points (Americans not being down with Mormonism and the fact that they can vote based on whatever they want) have anything to do with how interesting the story may be. Nor does national interest level have much to do with whether a point of ethics should be made.

                          I never said comments made at church aren't very compelling; on the contrary, I said comments made over the pulpit would actually be much more interesting. But I'm not hearing these--I've heard a few people say they like Romney, but in every case, they've actually been pretty careful to say that it's just their opinion and I've never heard them from a bishop/SP/GA (and I've actually heard just as much pro-Paul sentiment). Maybe we're just a little more progressive in these parts. Like I said, I don't doubt a pro-Romney bias exists, but there's a substantial difference between informal comments by members and formal comments over the pulpit from the local leaders.

                          I'm glad we agree that a coordinated anti-Mormon movement would be interesting, and would be picked up by the national media.
                          At least the Big Ten went after a big-time addition in Nebraska; the Pac-10 wanted a game so badly, it added Utah
                          -Berry Trammel, 12/3/10

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Viking View Post
                            I'm SHOCKED that a group of LDS techies hasn't put together a dossier on the coordinated evangelical effort to discredit Romney. I was able to code a few simple searches that yielded some interesting stuff from blogs, message boards, etc. This would be front page NYT/WaPo news if someone formalized it...It's really disappointing to see the role of discrimination take such a prominent part of this election. Romney's Mormonism is singled out over and over again by pastors as being the reason why to back Santorum.

                            I'm going to ask my atheist brother to take a look at this but sheesh, you good mormons are really going to rely on two former members to expose one of the ugliest cases of coordinated discrimination in US politics?
                            lol.

                            "There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
                            "It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
                            "Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by ERCougar View Post
                              Neither of your points (Americans not being down with Mormonism and the fact that they can vote based on whatever they want) have anything to do with how interesting the story may be. Nor does national interest level have much to do with whether a point of ethics should be made.
                              Well, then good luck contributing your part to the Smoking Gun dossier that makes an ethical point. I look forward to learning about the wire taps and message board conspiracies you unearth with Viking.

                              I will stand off on the sidelines with the editors of WashPo, NYt, WSJ, et al and consider this story a non issue unworthy of much coverage, let alone an exposé.

                              Please keep us informed of your progress!
                              Fitter. Happier. More Productive.

                              sigpic

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by TripletDaddy View Post
                                Well, then good luck contributing your part to the Smoking Gun dossier that makes an ethical point. I look forward to learning about the wire taps and message board conspiracies you unearth with Viking.

                                I will stand off on the sidelines with the editors of WashPo, NYt, WSJ, et al and consider this story a non issue unworthy of much coverage, let alone an exposé.

                                Please keep us informed of your progress!
                                At least the Big Ten went after a big-time addition in Nebraska; the Pac-10 wanted a game so badly, it added Utah
                                -Berry Trammel, 12/3/10

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X