White Horse Prophecy

[89Hen]

So is Jon trying to pass laws that limits their rights or is simply not sharing their views?

Or displaying hate for anyone who doesn't share his view.

[kalm]

So is Jon trying to pass laws that limits their rights or is simply not sharing their views?

Or displaying hate for anyone who doesn't share his view.

So people who don't believe in equality should have that view respected?

[89Hen]

Or displaying hate for anyone who doesn't share his view.

So people who don't believe in equality should have that view respected?

Nice try.

[kalm]

So people who don't believe in equality should have that view respected?

Nice try.

[UNI88]

I find it humorous that the supposedly tolerant, progressive donks are hammering away at a candidate's religion while at the same time decrying racism as the reason that conks want Obama out of the White House. The two sides are mirror images of each other, they just have different points of intolerance.

And before you use the argument that I have no understanding of the LDS because I'm not from the inter-mountain west, I grew up 20 miles from Nauvoo (if you don't know where that is or it's significance to Mormonism maybe you don't know what you're talking about). I've grown up with Mormons, a good friend in junior high was Mormon, there is a decent sized Mormon population in the Chicago area, one of my son's friends is a Mormon, etc. I believe I was in elementary school when I had my first conversation with Mormon missionaries. Then and every time since, they've been extremely polite, intelligent, willing to discuss their religion as much as I wanted (had an interesting conversation in 2008 about Romney's candidacy) and willing to take no for an answer. LDS is very different from mainstream Christian denominations and when things get tough, Mormons do circle the wagons and protect their own. From my experience, they also tend to be well-educated, well-behaved and very family-oriented.

I am very tolerant - except for the intolerance of others. You find it humorous that I take objection to a cult that financed the repeal of my civil rights
If you think that that is the same as racism, then frankly, you are clueless.
And no, living near Nauvoo (which I did, and have visited), with the relatively small Mormon population is not the same as living in areas with Mormon majorities, where they will only vote for fellow Mormons, if given the choice.

Jon, in general you are a very tolerant person. And I don't find it humorous that you object to the LDS' financial support of the fight against gay marriage. There is ample proof here and on AGS, that I support gay marriage. What I find humorous is your intolerance of Mormon beliefs. They have the right to believe what they want and while I disagree with some of what they believe, I respect their right to believe it. That doesn't mean that I agree with their financial support of the fight against gay marriage, I don't. I do respect their right to believe what they want and to lobby for it. LDS has positions and the financial resources to support those positions. You could say the same thing about unions. Should unions be prevented from spending money on political efforts?

And how is only voting for fellow Mormons any different than African-Americans voting for the African-American candidate based only on race? Why aren't you criticizing them? Wedgie is quick to criticize white's for being against Obama because of his race (which I agree is wrong), but find it hypocritical that there is no criticism of the reverse.

What I do find humorous is supposedly open-minded progressives hammering away at Romney because of his religion. To me, that is a form of intolerance. There were people that honestly thought that JFK was unqualified to be POTUS because he was catholic and the church would control him. How is this different? The founding fathers put checks & balances in place for a reason. The POTUS will not have unlimited power and if Romney is elected and he goes off the deep-end, Congress will take action to remove him.

To me this is just another example of the Left and Right being almost mirror images of each other. Both sides can be intolerant and self-righteous. One of the things that makes me chuckle about Romney's candidacy is the hypocrisy from the religious right. They trumpet "family values" but are willing to consider Gingrich because they have trouble with Romney's religion as well. Mormons tend to be extremely family-oriented and we all know that Gingrich is not the paragon of family values. How does anyone whose primary concern is family values rationalize support for Gingrich over Romney?

[kalm]

I am very tolerant - except for the intolerance of others. You find it humorous that I take objection to a cult that financed the repeal of my civil rights
If you think that that is the same as racism, then frankly, you are clueless.
And no, living near Nauvoo (which I did, and have visited), with the relatively small Mormon population is not the same as living in areas with Mormon majorities, where they will only vote for fellow Mormons, if given the choice.

Jon, in general you are a very tolerant person. And I don't find it humorous that you object to the LDS' financial support of the fight against gay marriage. There is ample proof here and on AGS, that I support gay marriage. What I find humorous is your intolerance of Mormon beliefs. They have the right to believe what they want and while I disagree with some of what they believe, I respect their right to believe it. That doesn't mean that I agree with their financial support of the fight against gay marriage, I don't. I do respect their right to believe what they want and to lobby for it. LDS has positions and the financial resources to support those positions. You could say the same thing about unions. Should unions be prevented from spending money on political efforts?

And how is only voting for fellow Mormons any different than African-Americans voting for the African-American candidate based only on race? Why aren't you criticizing them? Wedgie is quick to criticize white's for being against Obama because of his race (which I agree is wrong), but find it hypocritical that there is no criticism of the reverse.

What I do find humorous is supposedly open-minded progressives hammering away at Romney because of his religion. To me, that is a form of intolerance. There were people that honestly thought that JFK was unqualified to be POTUS because he was catholic and the church would control him. How is this different? The founding fathers put checks & balances in place for a reason. The POTUS will not have unlimited power and if Romney is elected and he goes off the deep-end, Congress will take action to remove him.

To me this is just another example of the Left and Right being almost mirror images of each other. Both sides can be intolerant and self-righteous. One of the things that makes me chuckle about Romney's candidacy is the hypocrisy from the religious right. They trumpet "family values" but are willing to consider Gingrich because they have trouble with Romney's religion as well. Mormons tend to be extremely family-oriented and we all know that Gingrich is not the paragon of family values. How does anyone whose primary concern is family values rationalize support for Gingrich over Romney?

Good post but the obvious difference being that homosexuality is not a belief, and nobody is trying to prevent the church from practicing their faith.

[Wedgebuster]

Double post.

Must of thought that was post of the year.

[UNI88]

Jon, in general you are a very tolerant person. And I don't find it humorous that you object to the LDS' financial support of the fight against gay marriage. There is ample proof here and on AGS, that I support gay marriage. What I find humorous is your intolerance of Mormon beliefs. They have the right to believe what they want and while I disagree with some of what they believe, I respect their right to believe it. That doesn't mean that I agree with their financial support of the fight against gay marriage, I don't. I do respect their right to believe what they want and to lobby for it. LDS has positions and the financial resources to support those positions. You could say the same thing about unions. Should unions be prevented from spending money on political efforts?

And how is only voting for fellow Mormons any different than African-Americans voting for the African-American candidate based only on race? Why aren't you criticizing them? Wedgie is quick to criticize white's for being against Obama because of his race (which I agree is wrong), but find it hypocritical that there is no criticism of the reverse.

What I do find humorous is supposedly open-minded progressives hammering away at Romney because of his religion. To me, that is a form of intolerance. There were people that honestly thought that JFK was unqualified to be POTUS because he was catholic and the church would control him. How is this different? The founding fathers put checks & balances in place for a reason. The POTUS will not have unlimited power and if Romney is elected and he goes off the deep-end, Congress will take action to remove him.

To me this is just another example of the Left and Right being almost mirror images of each other. Both sides can be intolerant and self-righteous. One of the things that makes me chuckle about Romney's candidacy is the hypocrisy from the religious right. They trumpet "family values" but are willing to consider Gingrich because they have trouble with Romney's religion as well. Mormons tend to be extremely family-oriented and we all know that Gingrich is not the paragon of family values. How does anyone whose primary concern is family values rationalize support for Gingrich over Romney?

Good post but the obvious difference being that homosexuality is not a belief, and nobody is trying to prevent the church from practicing their faith.

I understand your point but consider it from someone in the religious right's perspective. To many of them, homosexuality is a choice and they're proselytizing and attempting to use legislation in an attempt to save people's souls and protect traditional family values. I disagree with them completely, but from their perspective it's a worthy cause. They would also likely argue that their faith is an innate part of them. Why is it ok to ridicule them for who they are?

[Wedgebuster]

Good post but the obvious difference being that homosexuality is not a belief, and nobody is trying to prevent the church from practicing their faith.

I understand your point but consider it from someone in the religious right's perspective. To many of them, homosexuality is a choice and they're proselytizing and attempting to use legislation in an attempt to save people's souls and protect traditional family values. I disagree with them completely, but from their perspective it's a worthy cause. They would also likely argue that their faith is an innate part of them. Why is it ok to ridicule them for who they are?

Because sticks and stones may break their bones but words will never harm them. Yet you think it is ok for a powerful special interest (the LDS) to attack the private lives of others by using their financial power to enact laws.

Fucking pitiful, and un American to boot.

[89Hen]

Because sticks and stones may break their bones but words will never harm them. Yet you think it is ok for a powerful special interest (the LDS) to attack the private lives of others by using their financial power to enact laws.

Fucking pitiful, and un American to boot.

A group spending their own money to promote their beliefs is un-American?

[Wedgebuster]

Because sticks and stones may break their bones but words will never harm them. Yet you think it is ok for a powerful special interest (the LDS) to attack the private lives of others by using their financial power to enact laws.

Fucking pitiful, and un American to boot.

A group spending their own money to promote their beliefs is un-American?

Been a while since you read the Declaration of Independence, or is it another thing that only applies to you when it benefits you?

[ASUG8]

I understand your point but consider it from someone in the religious right's perspective. To many of them, homosexuality is a choice and they're proselytizing and attempting to use legislation in an attempt to save people's souls and protect traditional family values. I disagree with them completely, but from their perspective it's a worthy cause. They would also likely argue that their faith is an innate part of them. Why is it ok to ridicule them for who they are?

Because sticks and stones may break their bones but words will never harm them. Yet you think it is ok for a powerful special interest (the LDS) to attack the private lives of others by using their financial power to enact laws.

Fucking pitiful, and un American to boot.

Sounds like a lobbyist, of which there are thousands. Hopefully you have the same disdain for them as well.

[89Hen]

A group spending their own money to promote their beliefs is un-American?

Been a while since you read the Declaration of Independence, or is it another thing that only applies to you when it benefits you?

I don't think you know what the Declaration of Independence is. Maybe you meant the Bill of Rights?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Did you have something else in mind?

Either way, please edumacate us as to where is says a group, religious or otherwise, can't spend it's own money to promote their beliefs.

[Wedgebuster]

Quit beating around the bush here henny penny, are you going to climb on the Mitt bandwagon or not?

[89Hen]

Quit beating around the bush here henny penny, are you going to climb on the Mitt bandwagon or not?

No. But keep in mind that I wasn't on the Bush "bandwagon", but I voted for him twice. I have never been close to voting for a Dem for POTUS and doubt I ever will. However, I've voted for plenty of Dems on a local level.

BTW, does this mean you admit you were wrong about the Mormons' actions being un-American?

[andy7171]

Quit beating around the bush here henny penny, are you going to climb on the Mitt bandwagon or not?

No. But keep in mind that I wasn't on the Bush "bandwagon", but I voted for him twice. I have never been close to voting for a Dem for POTUS and doubt I ever will. However, I've voted for plenty of Dems on a local level.

BTW, does this mean you admit you were wrong about the Mormons' actions being un-American?

Did you vote for O'Malley?

[89Hen]

No. But keep in mind that I wasn't on the Bush "bandwagon", but I voted for him twice. I have never been close to voting for a Dem for POTUS and doubt I ever will. However, I've voted for plenty of Dems on a local level.

BTW, does this mean you admit you were wrong about the Mormons' actions being un-American?

Did you vote for O'Malley?

Hell no.... strange... he's a Catholic, but I didn't vote for him. That defies all the logic of the religious bashers.

[CAA Flagship]

Did you vote for O'Malley?

Hell no.... strange... he's a Catholic, but I didn't vote for him. That defies all the logic of the religious bashers.

With a name like O'Malley, if he wasn't Catholic, he would be missing a good opportunity to be.

[Wedgebuster]

Quit beating around the bush here henny penny, are you going to climb on the Mitt bandwagon or not?

No. But keep in mind that I wasn't on the Bush "bandwagon", but I voted for him twice. I have never been close to voting for a Dem for POTUS and doubt I ever will. However, I've voted for plenty of Dems on a local level.

BTW, does this mean you admit you were wrong about the Mormons' actions being un-American?

As you know wedgebuster is never wrong dick hole.

[89Hen]

Hell no.... strange... he's a Catholic, but I didn't vote for him. That defies all the logic of the religious bashers.

With a name like O'Malley, if he wasn't Catholic, he would be missing a good opportunity to be.

His entire election campaign was tying Ehrlich to Bush. Even used a stupid song to "Jingle Bells" for it.

The real reason I opposed him and continue to do so...

[youtube][/youtube]

Sounds great, right? We're spending $40M at a pop to rebuild schools that are aboslutely fine. They've done more than a dozen around me. That's not investing in schools IMO.

[ASUMountaineer]

Why do you care? I'm guessing, regardless of my answer, you will find a way to criticize it. The good news is, WTF cares?

We'll see who the other candidates on the ballot in NC will be. Obviously, the candidate that I most align with is Ron Paul, and I may just write him in. However, I stand by my statement that the four mentioned above have not and will not earn my vote. If one of them earns yours, so be it. It's none of my business who you vote for, but I guess that's just the way I am...I prefer to stay out of your business.

Then why do you go on a message board, bring it up by stating who you aren't voting for, then criticize someone for asking & say its none of people's business

If you say its none of people's business, then don't advertise your business...

Now, that is good stuff. I'm guessing you didn't understand the parts you bolded (or didn't read thoroughly). Let me try to make it easier for you to understand.

I did not say you can't ask me who I'm voting for, I asked why you cared. Hopefully, you're clever enough to see the difference. Also, I stated it's none of my business who YOU were voting for and that I prefer to stay out of YOUR business, because I don't care who you're voting for. If I did, I would have asked. Please show where I said "it's none of people's business" who I vote for.

Also, notice I answered your question about who I will be voting for. Now, anything else you take issue with, besides my choice of candidate?