Romney and the Mormon Cult

[Syn7]

Originally Posted by sanjuro_ronin

As for comedy VS serious, I think that's a cop out, sorry.
Disguising something in comedy MAY get a pass by some sure but Maher has always made it more than "just comedy".
And one can argue that more people take Maher seriously than they do Rush.

Hmmm... I disagree. Why does it have to be a disguise? Why can't it just be what it is?

And Bill Maher didn't attack a civilian. Rush did. Clearly the sponsors agree this is different. Last Thursday on Rushs largest host 77 or 86 Ads were PSA's. Free Ad's. No revenue. As of that day he had lost 141 sponsors.

It bothers me that fox would be so hard on Maher but give Rush a pass? Not to mention that they had Ted Nugent on as an honoured guest and gave him an unconditional pass after he said Hillary should stick his guns up her snatch. But I give Nugent a pass too. Not coz he isn't a retard but because he said it at a Ted Nugent show. It wasn't a news forum and he can say what he wants as long as he doesn't incite violence IMO. Like a comedy show, he wasn't presenting "facts" and pretending to be unbiased. I'm cool with that. But for FOX to give him a pass is beyond hypocritical. And these are the leaders of the take down Maher movement. Genius sh1t. And while Maher laughs at them Rush loses more sponsors. Ultimately the market will decide what people think. And if the majority wants to give Maher a pass but not to Rush, then that's that.

You really don't see a difference between insulting a civilian on a serious show and insulting a public official in a comedy routine? Maher calls Palin stupid and shallow. Hardly as bad as calling a civilian a $lut and a wh0re sex addict. Comedy or not. Yet states are still trying to put busts of Rush in the state houses. WTF?

Ok so I know what the C word is. What is the T word? What could be so bad that starts with a T? Every time they say it it gets censored and I have no idea what it is. Anyone?

[Syn7]

Originally Posted by sanjuro_ronin

I was just showing that, that definition, while the most popular one in regards to "cult" doesn't really apply to most organized religions, that's all.

Of course they don't. Did anyone say otherwise?

And like I said, I chose one of the more diverse definitions.

[diego]

Originally Posted by Syn7

Here's my problem. If he is honest and true to his religion then he MUST hold us all to Mormon values. If he isn't honest about his faith and his church and does NOT put the Mormon Church first then who will he be loyal to? Can he be loyal to anyone is he lies to himself and his family by not obeying the Mormon Values?

I'm pretty sure Mormon's heard of ww1 and ww2 they ain't trying to have a third one...he'd be loyal to the "defense of the nation" anyone who's anyone knows if you bring your faith into politics someone will shoot you.

http://lds.about.com/od/mormons/a/church_membership.htm

^it's only 14 million Mormons lol

[Syn7]

Mitt Romney isn't just a presidential hopeful who also happens to be part of the Mormon church. He was a bishop which is way at the top in that church. Like being a cardinal in the Vatican. He isn't just some civilian. He's a born wealthy religious leader. That sh1t is scary to a whole bunch of people. I hope he gets the nomination coz I think he's easy to beat.

Honestly tho, I think Santorum will take the nomination at the convention in June or July, whenever it is.

There will be no clear cut winner in delegates and the deals will start being made at the convention.

I s'pose it's possible that all 3 end up in that administration (if they win, that is). Like how Hillary used her leverage for a top job. None of those 3 will be VP candidates tho. One will be POTUS and the rest will have higher jobs in that scenario.

But yeah, I call Santorum. It's a scary thought, but it's what I think will happen given the current political climate.

I don't think he can beat Obama either tho.

I think dems need to start paying more attention to primary races in their areas and start challenging the establishment democrats and get some real ones in there. It's unfortunate that yall are stuck with a spineless wimp like Obama for another 4 years. Better than a Santorum or a Romney or a Gingrich. Ron Paul would be waaaaay better. I agree with at least 1/3 of what he believes and that is more than almost any other republican. Certainly as far as the ol' skoolers are concerned.

Already the republicans ALONE have spent double what both democrats and republicans COMBINED spent on the 2008 primary. DOUBLE, and there's a few months left?

As of a few days ago Obama had raised 42% of his donations from small donors. That means $200 or less. Paul raised 46% from small donors. Gingrich 48% and Santorum 49%. This shows grass roots support for these guys, at least in some areas. Romneys small donors amount to 10% of his total. In fact 97% of Romneys super pac money came in donations of $25k or higher. That is why this man is not good for America. He will be expected to make returns on these donations(retainers are what they really are).

The supreme court made a very VERY poor ruling in 2010 when they opened the door for super-pacs.

There is a very strong movement with massive financial weight behind it that is fighting corporate donations. They say that any corp that gives from the corp treasury thru other names trying to stay secret, they will be outed and they will feel it. They can make transparent political donations from their political funds. One of the organizations is called CAPS(Coalition for Accountability in Political Spending) and they have some serious weight. Check em out.

http://caps.nationbuilder.com/join_us?splash=1

Also there is the WolfPac, check it out. All these guys are doing whatever they can to keep big money out of politics. Eventually an ideal accomplishment would be fully public funded elections with ZERO private moneys.

http://www.wolf-pac.com/


these are just a few examples. There are a bunch of groups coordinating and really starting to make way. Stay up, it's coming.

Canada too. Same problem. There are people working on it, but we aren't as tough as CAPS yet.

[kfson]

As I understand Mormonism from various readings, their book was found (discovered) by a Freemason and the Mormon church is structured in similar to Freemasonry, whatever that means.
Evangelicals for the most part do not like Mormonism because the "books" are different.
Even among Evangelicals there is a wide variety of viewpoints. Even among the Mormons their are differences. Even among the Freemasons there are differences, but they invite plurality, as I am told.