Burn-E Posted August 31, 2012 Report Share Posted August 31, 2012 Exactly. Thomas S. Monson will not have a red hotline to the President's office if Romney is elected. But you pull up the one problem and concern I have with Romney. I want to believe he is better than that but I'm not sure I can trust that belief. But if the alternative is 4 more years of Obama unrestrained by concerns about reelection (and I voted for him last time), I remain inclined to vote Republican this time around. I'm willing to reconsider that decision based on what I hear from the debates but I doubt my mind will change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfishing3 Posted August 31, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 31, 2012 i feel like we are beating you up A. i wish there were more people in here debating. i don't want to move this to OT, but we are tearing up this Pres thread lolopen disclosure= my wife is a teacher, so i'll argue the TEACHERS union all day lol the admin, princ. are a completely diff union. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fudge_Brownie Posted August 31, 2012 Report Share Posted August 31, 2012 But you pull up the one problem and concern I have with Romney. I want to believe he is better than that but I'm not sure I can trust that belief. Hey look at that, right back on track to original debate So what makes you believe he isn't going to answer to his corpo-people first? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErikS Posted August 31, 2012 Report Share Posted August 31, 2012 Hey look at that, right back on track to original debate So what makes you believe he isn't going to answer to his corpo-people first? Its not who the president will be, its who will likely come along with them into power. I think the great trick of presidential elections on the American people is how focused we are on one person, instead of the people that advise them. http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/cabinet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fudge_Brownie Posted August 31, 2012 Report Share Posted August 31, 2012 Its not who the president will be, its who will likely come along with them into power. I think the great trick of presidential elections on the American people is how focused we are on one person, instead of the people that advise them. http://www.whitehous...tration/cabinet I'm not convinced it is all done as part of the trick, so much as it is equally the general American public's inability to have depth in their debate. I really do believe too many people want one man to hate, or one to love. The silver bullet, or the devil either way. But too many people won't even make decisions on the persons policy, just the TMZ-bullshit they see on tv clips. Just ask Mitt Romney's dog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7 VII 7 Posted August 31, 2012 Report Share Posted August 31, 2012 My problem with abortion is that people are using it as birth control. Not just one abortion but also multiple abortions. I just don't understand why people are going to vote for Obama when he has done such a SHITTY job over the last 4 years.... or are people not voting for Obama just against the Republicans? I hate the race card also "Black people are just voting for Obama because he is black." Ok, well people are voting AGAINST Obama because he is black... race card is such a cop-out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JCviggen Posted August 31, 2012 Report Share Posted August 31, 2012 (edited) JC I don't know you but do you use the same disparaging tone when speaking to Jews, other Christians or Sikhs concerning the origins of their faith and the symbols of their covenants? I wouldn't bring it up unless they brought it up first, I normally couldn't care less but we are talking about electing a president and that would raise the standard I expect from that person. So yes I would say similar things regardless of the particular religion involved. Most people don't have the power to influence my life in a possibly negative way, in that case, whatever makes them happy. There's nothing more unusual in believing Joseph Smith's experiences in receiving a visit from God the Father and Jesus Christ and the command to translate the Book of Mormon than to believe Moses separated the Red Sea, that Jesus turned water to wine, or that Mohammed received a visit from the angel Gabriel. These are faith based beliefs and it is poor form to disparage another man's beliefs just because you don't believe them. You're right, they are all crazy and unfounded. I don't actually mean crazy in an insulting way, but neither do I feel that religious faith qualifies for endless "respect". Irrationality should not be applauded, and childhood indoctrination should be frowned upon. Other opinions (like political ones) are not treated with similar respect anyway. I don't see much of a difference. I don't feel that respect (in remaining silent) does humanity as a whole any favours. Then again I'm not American, I don't take a bath in moral disinfectant every morning. I don't know where people get this idea from that it is their right not to ever see or hear anything offensive. It's a big bad world out there, don't take it too serious. So unless you know the man personally and understand the level of service he provided to hundreds of people (all for free by the way - there is no paid clergy in our church it's all volunteer) you don't know what you're talking about. Instead you're perpetuating unfounded stories . I'm sorry, but the qualities that a "commander-in-Chief" needs to posess are slightly different from those a pastor needs. I'm sure Mitt makes a fine preacher and well-doer when there is no voting or interest groups involved. But if I were voting for anyone in this election I'd wonder more about his ability to respond in a reasonable and intellectual manner to foreign threats, secret intelligence info and whatnot. For that, professing belief in things which conflict with known history and science is not a positive asset. So I'd disqualify anyone who professes literal belief in a particular religious script. Deism I'd find acceptable if nobody else is available. And by the way there are written testimonies from 15 other men who all saw the golden plates Joseph translated. Plus the testimonies of many others who saw them as well. Do your research please before you perpetuate more lies about Mormons. If that's what it takes than a lot of religions (and paranormal crap) just became "real" as well. People are easily convinced. How would they be able to tell if the plates were actual gold and from a divine origin, as opposed to something Smith himself made to kick-start the religion? It's not like he had a reputation for fooling people or anything...oh wait. Edited August 31, 2012 by JCviggen 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn-E Posted August 31, 2012 Report Share Posted August 31, 2012 I'm not offended JC but in polite company we don't poke people in the eye just because we disagree with their beliefs. I found that to be the case in France as well so it's not just an American trait. In fact I didn't find that in the French speaking part of Belgium either in general while I lived there. So I think we're talking about personal and not national traits here. And your approach stinks. For what it's worth, you've just said every President of the United States bar 5 lacked the qualifications to serve in that role. In the case of a few given their history and poor capacity in the role I would agree with you. Across the rest history says you're wrong. But yes, that is my opinion too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfishing3 Posted August 31, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 31, 2012 My problem with abortion is that people are using it as birth control. So how many unwanted kids can I put you down for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErikS Posted August 31, 2012 Report Share Posted August 31, 2012 And your approach stinks. I find Jan's approach quite rational, and the idea that the constitution was divinely inspired quite irrational. No one is poking eyes out, no need to feel attacked. If a presidential candidate wears his faith on his sleeve, its up for arguement. I have found through most of my conversations and discussions with friends who are religious to become defensive once science, objective physical evidence, and empiricism clash with the ideals of any faith. Of course I do have an invisible dragon in my garage, so who am I to argue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JCviggen Posted August 31, 2012 Report Share Posted August 31, 2012 For what it's worth, you've just said every President of the United States bar 5 lacked the qualifications to serve in that role. In the case of a few given their history and poor capacity in the role I would agree with you. Across the rest you're dead wrong. And yes, that is my opinion. I only said that personally, I'd put the bar of what is acceptable a bit higher. That's not the same as claiming that no honestly religious person can do a good job as president (or at the very least not f*** stuff up) Presidents can have many potential flaws that never get exposed because the conditions aren't there or because they have a safety net of hopefully solid adisers. That doesn't mean that every president who did a decent job was in retrospect the best suited candidate. Might have been of course, but it's non sequitur. Literal religious belief isn't rational but because it's usually merely inherited at a young age it can be well insulated from the regular, reasonable decision making part employed in real life. That doesn't make it a positive asset though. In any case, non-religious politicians currently have little to no chance of making it as far as president of the US. So if your ambition is to become one, you're either going to have to be religous or act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn-E Posted August 31, 2012 Report Share Posted August 31, 2012 Erik, I actually believe there is no conflict between science and the faith I believe in. That's a fairly common understanding among Mormons who think carefully about these things. Henry Eyring (father of one of the current highest leaders of the Mormon church), once President of the American Chemical Society was the leading physical chemist at Princeton in the 30's and 40's and a close associate of Albert Einstein. They couldn't agree on whether or not dogs would be resurrected but found commonality on their views of science. Eyring tried to recruit my father, a biochemist, to the University of Utah's faculty. Dad had other ideas. My view is science doesn't explain everything the average human mind believes it does and doesn't really conflict with most of the areas people think it does when it comes to religion. I'm no creationist. I do believe God created the world but it was a process and evolution was part of it. Most thinking Mormons see it this way too. There is a place for rational thought for religious beliefs to fit if you really stop and consider it in the proper framework. In fact, true faith is only developed through the scientific method. The greatest asset a scientific mind can have is to allow the flexibility for the unbelievable or the impossible to become reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilled man Posted August 31, 2012 Report Share Posted August 31, 2012 My problem with abortion is that people are using it as birth control. Not just one abortion but also multiple abortions. I just don't understand why people are going to vote for Obama when he has done such a SHITTY job over the last 4 years.... or are people not voting for Obama just against the Republicans? I hate the race card also "Black people are just voting for Obama because he is black." Ok, well people are voting AGAINST Obama because he is black... race card is such a cop-out Who cares what they do to there own bodies , its there stupid deseicion to F it up , I for one have stopped carring what other idiots due. I see more damage done due to idiots eating fast food then removing a parasite from a persons body that they dont want . Also doubling of the Stock Market since he has been office ....... what is he doing so bad again ? Erik, I actually believe there is no conflict between science and the faith I believe in. That's a fairly common understanding among Mormons who think carefully about these things. Henry Eyring (father of one of the current highest leaders of the Mormon church), once President of the American Chemical Society was the leading physical chemist at Princeton in the 30's and 40's and a close associate of Albert Einstein. They couldn't agree on whether or not dogs would be resurrected but found commonality on their views of science. Eyring tried to recruit my father, a biochemist, to the University of Utah's faculty. Dad had other ideas. My view is science doesn't explain everything the average human mind believes it does and doesn't really conflict with most of the areas people think it does when it comes to religion. I'm no creationist. I do believe God created the world but it was a process and evolution was part of it. Most thinking Mormons see it this way too. There is a place for rational thought for religious beliefs to fit if you really stop and consider it in the proper framework. In fact, true faith is only developed through the scientific method. The greatest asset a scientific mind can have is to allow the flexibility for the unbelievable or the impossible to become reality. :mindblown: I can see your side of info its defitnaly more belivable then the fucking retard vew of the Jehovahs witness , fucking idiots think humans have been on the earth for less then 6000 years .... I mean how fucking retarded do you have to be ? Granted they are only .7% of the US popluation and I can belive 10% of the popluation of the US is full of mentally handicaped cult worship assholes. Woops did that slip out .... fuck it :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn-E Posted August 31, 2012 Report Share Posted August 31, 2012 It's not what Obama did Justin, it's what the Fed has done (kept interest rates low). And the hockey stick the market has taken was inherited by Obama due to Bush's actions in bailing out the banks. TARP had nothing to do with Obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilled man Posted August 31, 2012 Report Share Posted August 31, 2012 It's not what Obama did Justin, it's what the Fed has done (kept interest rates low). And the hockey stick the market has taken was inherited by Obama due to Bush's actions in bailing out the banks. TARP had nothing to do with Obama. So the question to Dave is then what is the horrible things has he done then ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts