Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 25, 2014, 01:48:12 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 523
1  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Gubernatorial/Statewide Elections / Re: The Rehabilitation of Martha Coakley on: July 24, 2014, 07:42:38 pm
2  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: Battleground Georgia: Democrats see 2014 flip on: July 24, 2014, 12:18:48 am
Democrats' wet dream since 1992.

What are you talking about? Georgia Democrats were still doing well then.

My friend, it doesn't bode well to make such sweeping statements.

Sure, there are enough trends to indicate that there is a Democratic majority about to emerge, but let's not ignore the possibility that the GOP can (and most likely will) address such changes in a way besides saying "nah uh uh!"  Or more to the point, all they need is an economic shift in the demographics that will upset the balance in the state.

No offense, but your analysis about the FOREVER DEMOCRATIC Georgia is a bit in the hackish realm.  Nunn and Carter winning in 2014 is no more of a testament to permanent political realignment as Walsh and Curley winning in 1934.  Sure, a victory can happen in 2014, 2016, or 2018, but it's not some definite end to GOP hopes . . . . .  forever.  

How are Georgia Republicans going to address the changes when African American votes aren't remotely elastic?

You all forget that Perdue is already talking like he is running in CO or VA.  Even if Kingston beat Nunn, he would likely be toast in 2020.  But if Perdue doesn't self-immolate this year or get primaried from the right, he has the seat as long as he wants it.

Southern blacks are even more partisan than southern whites, so Perdue could be in trouble by just being a Republican.

I can imagine this post in 1934:

How are Massachusetts Republicans going to address the changes when Irish American votes aren't even remotely elastic!?


Northern Catholics are even more partisan than Northern Protestants, so Bacon could be in trouble just by being a Republican.
3  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: Battleground Georgia: Democrats see 2014 flip on: July 23, 2014, 10:18:37 pm
Georgia is so inelastic that once Democrats break through in multiple races, it's a signaling point that the demographics are reaching critical mass. Nunn and Carter are helping us cheat by moving it up a cycle so to speak, but the argument by and large still stands.

After that happens, the Republicans will have at most one cycle to reclaim any territory before they lose it forever. In other words, if Nunn/Carter win in '14, Republicans can fight hard to keep Georgia's EVs for the Republicans - and the Senate seat - in '16, but '18 would likely be a clean-sweep of all statewide offices for Democrats (save for the very most popular incumbents). It also won't help that every statewide officer will be finishing their second term, a common retirement point, in '18 (except State School Superintendent).

In the example above, though, I think a Dem win in the Gov/Sen races in '14 is a lot harder than a win in '16; that case may be the actual end of Republican dominance in the state if we succeed in Nov.

My friend, it doesn't bode well to make such sweeping statements.

Sure, there are enough trends to indicate that there is a Democratic majority about to emerge, but let's not ignore the possibility that the GOP can (and most likely will) address such changes in a way besides saying "nah uh uh!"  Or more to the point, all they need is an economic shift in the demographics that will upset the balance in the state.

No offense, but your analysis about the FOREVER DEMOCRATIC Georgia is a bit in the hackish realm.  Nunn and Carter winning in 2014 is no more of a testament to permanent political realignment as Walsh and Curley winning in 1934.  Sure, a victory can happen in 2014, 2016, or 2018, but it's not some definite end to GOP hopes . . . . .  forever
4  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Is Kalwejt gone? on: July 23, 2014, 07:33:15 am
Like I told him in private if he wants to leave I won't stop him.  Fact of the matter is many of us could prob do with less Atlas.

With that said, he is one of the best writers I've had the privilege of knowing.  I hope he uses that gift someday and make millions of dollars to fund his hookah habit.
5  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Opinion of Ray Goldfield on: July 21, 2014, 08:21:47 am
That's like saying hifly is a FF and it's the National Organization for Marriage and Christian fundamentalist groups who are the HP.

I didn't say he was an FF.  If he is anything he's a victim, though not in the way he imagines.
6  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Opinion of Ray Goldfield on: July 21, 2014, 04:31:58 am
I disagree with him quite strongly, but I am not going to call him an HP.  His fears, however misplaced they are, seem pretty sincere.

If there is anybody at fault here it's AIPAC and other organization (like Christian fundamentalists) who are the real HPs.
7  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: The Deluge of Absurdity, Ignorance, and Bad Posts IV on: July 20, 2014, 09:01:42 am
What makes this post so awful are more undertones and implications than anything else, but the undertones and implications are really awful. (Strangely, the sentence mentioning the Pioneer Fund is probably the least awful one in the whole post. You don't see that every day!)

Pretty heavily actually.  I refuse to buy Starbucks, because they wouldn't give coffee to the troops. I also refuse to shop at Wasems, because the guy who started the local one was a big supporter of the Pioneer fund. And finally, I wont buy from any store that gave money to the local YWCA. I know that might sound awful, but they kind of have a habit of running smear campaigns, throwing a fit when the city tried to set up a men's shelter etc. The director also went on live TV, and said we don't understand why Men feel attacked by us, but then said 4/5 serial killers are White Men. While they may actually be true, can you really wonder why someone might be offended? Let me put it this way, if I give a speech to the NAACP, and say that most of the highest crime areas have a high minority population, do you think they are going to react very well? No. I would get booed off the stage Romney style.
Whats your issue with it? Nothing I said wasn't true.

While it may actually be true*, can you really wonder why someone might be offended?

*aspects of it are!
If I made a comment like that? Yeah I could understand. Can you not understand why being told you are the most likely to be a serial killer is offensive? Another example, if I said almost all Pedophiles were Catholic priests is that okay? Also what undertones are you referring to? And finally which part isn't true?

You seem to be a very angry and bitter young man.

I'm not being humorous here.  I think you should really talk to somebody about your feelings.
8  Questions and Answers / The Atlas / Re: Time to take out the trash: Petition to ban Dave Liep on: July 20, 2014, 04:30:36 am
I truly don't understand your obsession with me.

It is best not to make inquiries into the mind of BRTD.  NOBODY understands him.
9  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: How big of an impact does politics have on your purchases? on: July 20, 2014, 03:31:17 am
Overall, somewhat. I've never shopped at Hobby Lobby, nor did I ever plan to. I really won't now though. I am trying to avoid Koch products.

So pretty much avoid buying things I might wipe my ass with?

Yeah, that seems easy.

EDIT: Though that does seem easy, given that I"m not a huge fan of TP like Angel Soft.  Nothing is more irritating than weak TP.
10  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: The Simple Truths Silver Mine on: July 20, 2014, 02:34:01 am
    I've never had Chick-fil-A, but being better than KFC is not difficult.
11  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Ask not Mechaman on: July 19, 2014, 09:23:40 pm
Today's Assignment:

IN today's world there are millions and millions of public restroom facilities.  Some are shockingly clean, and many are home to billions of unidentified forms of biological warfare.  Some of these places come with convenient paper seat covers, many don't.  Using relevant research resources, please take state your position on the proper usage of public toilets.  Defend why you use or don't use the paper toilet seats when they are provided (or if there are none available, clarify if you use the nearby toilet paper receptacle to guard your underlegs) as well as your wiping technique.  If you are of the male sex, please describe your ideal stance in front of the urinal and how the material of your pants affects your "glide".

Please respond with 2,000 words or less.
12  Forum Community / Forum Community / Ask not Mechaman on: July 19, 2014, 09:15:15 pm
I do not answer questions.  I only give solutions, to questions that are never asked.

On today's agenda: what makes a good lie.

In order to be a good liar you must strive to put the amount of proper research into it without using too much of it.  The most successful setup requires at least a little bit of truth or basis in fact.  You must at least have something that has happened in reality or is verified by the laws of nature as a backdrop to your rotten lowdown lies.

However, no lie should never have too much truth in it.  Ideally, the perfect lie has about 40% truth to it.  Political hacks, marketing firms, and Corporate America agrees with this statement 95% of the time when asked about this on sunny days with minimal cloud cover.  If you pull for a lie with less than 40% truth you suspect smelling like bullsh*t, if you pull for 50% or more truth then you are practically telling the truth and shouldn't even bother.

This is why pyramid schemes are so effective, because they do work very well for some, but not all who are members of it.  You can earn money from the schemes, but only if you happened to be there five years ago and recruited 100 people to sell more insurance for ya!

This is your Mecha thought for the day.
13  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Hillary Clinton: Becoming Grandmother Could Halt 2016 Bid Read Latest Breaking on: July 19, 2014, 11:14:26 am
Well of course she would say that.  What would you expect her to say "I'm going to be a grandmother but that isn't going to get in the way of my goals for the presidency?"

Like bedstuy said, this is the politically correct move.  No sane realistic candidate is going to say "country first" over their family in an interview watched by millions.
14  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Favourite latest post by previous poster on: July 19, 2014, 09:30:16 am
What's your dad, Satan, like?
15  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of the "Radical Republicans" on: July 19, 2014, 09:26:01 am
I'm quite a fan of them, although they could have been more effective in implementing their ideals.

Which would have assuredly led to another Civil War.  

Seriously though, turning the South in a despotic military state is a very un-American idea if you get down to it.  

As is slavery. Funny how that works out.

Yeah, but no one is calling the slaveowners "Freedom Fighters".  

Yeah, we're only calling their strongest opposition Freedom Fighters.

Radical Republicanism had very little to do with slavery after a the Reconstruction Amendments were passed.  It was much more about subjugating the Southern people and treating them as a conquered nation.  Of course, that's terribly hypocritical considering that Republicans made the argument that the South never had actually seceded in the first place.

Well of course silly goose, once slavery was abolished they had little reason to continue to promote anti-slavery legislation.

Of course, Reconstruction was handled wrongly.  But that was more of a problem of the Republicans succumbing to a "sensible moderate direction" than them actually following through on the Radicals' ideas.  If they had gone all the way with the Radicals' plans the weight of the punishment for the South would've been targeted towards the real villains: the landowners.  Instead, what we got was a watered down Reconstruction that slapped the filthy landowners on the wrist while disenfranchising many poor whites in the region (and in reality putting the blunt of the blame on them, instead of the landowners and the Confederate leadership) and help create notoriously corrupt Republican regimes in the South that would set the stage for "the Redeemers".
16  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: 1828 Presidential Election on: July 19, 2014, 09:15:02 am
Write-in: Working Men's Party Electors

Even before he was president Jackson was running on open Manifest Destiny and a defense of black slavery.  However, given that the types who supported the National Republican Party were full of those types who would view me and others of the Celtic stock as uncouth criminal savages who can't be trusted with a vote (inconvenient fact #996: electoral franchise in parts of New England was severely limited in the early 19th century to prevent French and Irish radicals from having an impact on government) and that John Q Adams had no problem (and was at the time supportive) of keeping the franchise severely limited for their benefit, I sure as hell can't say I'd be anywhere close to predisposed to voting for John Q.

Really, 1828 was a pretty sh*tty election with few choices.
17  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: I'm Leaving...For Now on: July 19, 2014, 09:03:01 am
Admit it, whether you like the guy or not there's going to be a part of this forum that feels empty without his contributions.

No. Just no.

Oh come on man!  Surely you can admit that there is a part of you that enjoys his whole "THE REPUBLICANS FREEEEEEEEEEEEEED THE SLAVES AND THE DEMOCRATS HATE TEH BLACKS!" act that he pulls constantly.  Even if he applies this very flawed view to modern day politics, it's always worth the few laughs.
18  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: How big of an impact does politics have on your purchases? on: July 19, 2014, 08:56:57 am
I guess as for politics, almost no impact.

I don't eat at Chic-fil-a because I think their chicken is the most overrated nastiest chicken in the history of chicken, not because I oppose the religious views of the owner.  Also, it is harder than sh*t to eat there since a bunch of the nutjobs started eating there religiously because MUH RELIGIOUS FREEDOM! so even if I did like the chicken there's no way in hell I'd eat there now because I'd have to park half a mile away just to eat there and wait fifteen minutes to order.

I don't shop at Wal-Mart (or at least I don't try to) because it's actually really inconvenient to drive to any of the local Wal-Marts in my area and when I do get there the fruits and vegetables are usually deader than the Dodo Bird, their bakery bread sucks, Great Values soda tastes like ammonia, if you get a pair of jeans from there it has about a 75% chance of having a broken zipper, if you do get one with a workable zipper it will last six months before ripping a hole around your crotch, the furniture you can buy is apparently made out of paper mache, the idiot cashiers overcharge the sh*t out of you for the sh*t produce (true story, I got beets at Whole Foods for a third of the price the morons charge you at Wal-Mart) you can get from the place, and Electronics needs more stuff!
The politics, as bad as it is, comes in a distant second compared to the quality issues I've experienced at Wal-Mart.  THough like Indy says, those are prob related.

So yes, I think I would say that in general out of the places that I have shopped at before but avoid like the plague, politics is really not important.  Those places having the worst customer service and product quality in the world, however, kind of is.
19  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: How big of an impact does politics have on your purchases? on: July 19, 2014, 08:41:34 am

A business's chief aim from its own standpoint is to maximize its value for the owners/shareholders. My aim as a consumer is to maximize the value I get from the economic transactions I engage in. If I'm buying a particular good or service, I'm going to buy it from the firm that allows me to best meet that objective.

Do I agree with Chick Fil A's LGBT views? No. But I don't go there for socio-political commentary. I go there for chicken.

I generally avoid Wal-Mart. Not because I disapprove of the way they treat their employees (which I do), but because their low prices are outweighed by the inconvenient and unpleasant experience of shopping in their stores (which may be in part due to said mistreatment of employees).

How much does a company's political activity and personal policy have on your purchases?

For me it is a good deal. This is especially true for a company's environmental policies. I tend to seek out companies that are friendly to the environment and especially that are 1% For The Planet pledges. Politics plays a large role in my life and I don't see why I would consistently give my money to a company that advocates against my preferred policies when I could be giving it to one that will help my side for a near identical product.

Brands that I recommend for the progressives:

New Belgium Brewery
Ben & Jerry's
A lot of others that I just can't think of

Do you own any Apple products? Congratulations. You must support Chinese slave labor. Give yourself a pat on the back. Do you own any Samsung products? Congratulations. You must support Chinese slave labor. Give yourself a pat on the back.

Yes I believe the point of this thread is that Wal-Mart is a pretty unpleasant place to shop.  I mean, almost every cashier I've had at a Wal-Mart have been very unpleasant.  Of course, management probably treats them like sh*t and pays them minimum wage when a few years ago they were making $8.40/hr, so I shouldn't really be surprised.  That is probably the only reason why I don't march to the back and demand that action be taken against these people, because I know that they are being taken over the coals and shat on by people higher up who really don't give a sh*t.
(I'm also a former employee of Wal-Mart, so I'm not exactly talking out of my ass here)

I will comment though that I find it hilarious that Illini "recommends" Kohls.  I also worked at Kohls before and they gave the sh*ttiest breaks in the history of eight hour work days.  Night managers really enjoyed walking by your area every five f***ing minutes and yelling at you for daring to be standing up for a second without a box or an item in your hand about to be stocked.  We got fifteen minute breaks for evening shifts and were given a stiff talking to if we happened to be in the breakroom two minutes over (they supposedly had a deal with the Subway next door to give us discounts.  However, it took like five minutes to walk from the back docks to the Subway store, another five to order the sandwich, and by the time we got back the break was over.  So seriously, what was even the f***in point of the break in the first place?).  Maybe it's different in other places, but the one I worked at was the second worst job I ever had (the worst was Carl's Jr., which really says a lot that Kohl's is second).  Not to mention, the company promotes debt slavery through their "Kohl's Credit Card", which management and the sales people worship worship like they are a deluded cult.  Kohl's is a religion, and their credit card is their god.  They don't really care about selling shirts and sh*t, they just care about getting as many poor suckers onto their credit card scheme as possible in the hopes that 10% of those poor fools forget to pay their tabs on time and pay them outrageous extortion fees interest rates.

Seriously, the only "liberal" thing about Kohl's seems to be their focus on "green" energy.  Other than that, they are just a nicer looking Target.
20  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: If Republicans sweep '14 and '16... on: July 19, 2014, 08:17:34 am
It's amazing how many Republicans want to repeal the ACA but voted for Medicare Part D .

Yes, and only one of these was actually paid for in some way.  Guess which one.
21  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: I'm Leaving...For Now on: July 19, 2014, 08:15:34 am
Anyone who feels that they need to pray about what to do on an internet forum clearly needs to break from said internet forum, and I'm glad that Oldies realizes this.



I am not one who will take the moment to heckle over this, given that Oldies feels so strongly about the forum.  While he does have a more than somewhat flawed perspective on the modern parties (or hell, like a lot of you, even a flawed perspective on the past), he has always brought a fascinating if even misguided view of the world.

Admit it, whether you like the guy or not there's going to be a part of this forum that feels empty without his contributions.

22  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Anti-Mormon bigotry on the Atlas on: July 19, 2014, 07:44:08 am
What seems to be the main point against anti-Mormon bigotry that Mechaman mentioned is that there are liberal members of such a belief system. I've heard the same thing about Catholics on here, the idea being "Don't hate on them, not all of them actually believe all that crap!" What this seems to come down to is that one shouldn't hate on a particular denomination because some percentage of the constituency might agree with you on politics, or might not care about the doctrine that much. Such is a false premise, and seems to indicate that if one is a liberal in any denomination, that is the reason one shouldn't be bigoted toward said denomination, which is absolute horse shyte. If you're going to be opposed to hatred or bigotry or discrimination against certain belief systems, it should be based on a general tolerance as opposed to some crap about how "I know X person, who is of Y belief system, and they're on our side of politics, so don't hate on them!" If sharing your political views is the reason to not hate certain demographics of society, then... well, really I don't have a response to this except a sort of "What?" combined with various expletives.

My point is about tolerance.  There are conservative Mormons, there are liberal Mormons, and there are socialist Mormons.  Maybe I worded it wrong the first time to make it sound like I believe (which is false, as any of you who really knew me well enough, which I guess you dain't) that you shouldn't embrace bigotry against groups because they have some people who agree with you.  That is not what I believe, I believe in general tolerance towards most groups short of those that are actually legitimately bad and harmful towards society.  And no, I don't consider the largely conservative Mormon Church any more of a threat to society than Fox News.

My point, in pointing out that there were a number of liberal members (not just a few) in the Mormon Church is to show that as a group they have enough diversity and allow enough freedom of thought (I don't recall the Church excommunicating Mo Udall, for instance) to make any such blanket attempts bigoted.  Obviously, if this were the 1930s and I encountered a liberal Nazi (don't know how that would work) I wouldn't excuse Nazis as a whole for being a bunch of racist bastards just because a member of the Nazi party believed in universal healthcare and thought that the anti-Jew thing was going too far.  The difference between a liberal Mormon and a liberal Nazi is pretty clear: the consequences of "not caring" about some of the more fundamentalist issues in Mormonism is a hell of a lot less harmful than ignoring the fundamentalist issues (like killing Jews and Slavs) that are advocated in Nazism and other evil ideologies.

Of course you know this is what I actually believe, and not what is in the OP.  THis seems to be more of a critique of how I wrote the Original Post in ten minutes twenty minutes before I left for work.  I concede it was poorly worded, but I still stand by my comments that there is a bigoted element on these boards against Mormons in general that otherwise pretends to be "liberal".  And before anyone says "OH I DON'T HATE MORMONS!  I'M NOT A BIGOT!" let me ask if you think that most people who claim "I AM NOT A RACIST, BUT. . . . " are actual non-racists or are just trying to say something racist?

You see this is about a whole thing of degrees.  The most insane thing I've seen from Mormonism is some random quotes about how you can be God of the Sun and guys biking in business wear in the middle of July in Midland, Texas.  Oh and maybe something about how blacks are the Son of Ham or whoever the hell it was who was Noah's black son a long ass time ago, though on the racism thing (and maybe I just notice this because I'm in the South) I should note that many white protestant denominations believed similar things about blacks as recently as forty years ago.  A church one of my friends went to a long time ago, for instance, has on record a sermon by a preacher in the 1960s about why a black man shouldn't sit next to a white woman.  So even on the legitimate points about negative things (like the anti-black racism) about Mormonism in the past half century, a lot of people are still missing that the Mormon Church was founded in a pretty racist era (the early 19th century, when most whites (even the abolitionists) thought that blacks were subhumans) and that there were some shrooms involved in the process.  Also, many denominations outside of the Latter Saints held onto some of their racist views also well into the 1970s if not the 1980s.  Likely, the average 19th century Mormon was less racist than the average white person was back then.

Meanwhile, the Ku Klux Klan was formed in a pretty racist era but with the explicit and primary goal of harming black people, and not just thinking (like a lot of people) that they were lower than whites.  That is on a whole more harmful level than what Mormons would've believed and practiced back then and would likely be more harmful than what they preach today.

Criticizing the Mormon's Church's opposition to gay marriage is not bigotry just like it isn't bigotry to criticize the Catholic Church for being opposed to birth control. What is bigotry is this idea that the followers of said church are deluded freaks who deserve spite.
23  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Anti-Mormon bigotry on the Atlas on: July 18, 2014, 09:17:47 pm
Contempt for people who hold crazy belief systems is not bigotry. By that standards, holding ill will toward Communists would also be bigotry. The Religious Privilege implicit in the thread title is breathtaking.

Before I bother responding, may I ask if you ever actually researched the Book of Mormon or asked a Mormon what they believe?  Because I really don't feel like this is worth the few minutes response time I normally give to somebody if I feel like you are just pulling this defense out of your ass in the same manner that jingoistic conservative nationalists pull out their standard faire anti-Muslim diatribes.
24  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Anti-Mormon bigotry on the Atlas on: July 18, 2014, 09:10:43 pm
Am I missing something? That post wasn't bigoted in the least. Mitt's presidential runs were/would be heavily supported by both Mormon donors and voters, and yes, he would depend on them for his base of support. Just like Obama depended on blacks for his base of support.

Now, Lief may have made other anti-Mormon posts that I'm unaware of, but there's certainly nothing wrong with that one.

Also, that's assuming making jokes about someone's religious beliefs is "bigotry". Last time I checked, nobody is actually trying to impose second class citizenship or other restrictions on Mormons for their beliefs, the worst they get is made fun of on the internet. Boo hoo. I have to agree with the posters talking about "religious privilege" here. Your beliefs are not immune from criticism or jokes just because they might hurt your feelings.

First, I should note that I am nowhere near Mormon.  In fact, I am a pretty agnostic person in general.

Second, it wasn't really the post itself more as the history of the person who posted it (though I should note that Lief using the word "morman" instead of "mormon" is very very telling of his subtle bigotry).  I have made more than a few critiques of religious groups (especially in some of my historical posts on what people consider to be "mainstream protestants") and do not hesitate go call outright racism where I see it.

I am not a fan of Mitt Romney.  I did not support him for president.  I voted for Barack Obama in 2012.  However, I should note that you have a pretty absurd definition of "bigotry" if you think that "bigotry" excludes speech.

Here, let me help you out with a definition of "bigotry":

Bigotry is the state of mind of someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats or views other people with fear, distrust or hatred on the basis of a person's ethnicity, race, religion, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics.
You see, jokes about how many wives Joseph Smith had is not "bigotry".  Hell, even jokes about cycling 5,000 miles a year while wearing full on dress slacks and business shirts will make you God of Jupiter or whatever the hell insane weird thing that was in the Book of Mormon (supposedly) is not even bigotry.  It's not even bigotry to point out that as recently as the 1960s that the Mormon Church had a restriction on making black men leaders in the Church.

What is bigotry is the attitude that some on here take against Mormons as a whole as a bunch of crazy religious nutjobs who lack sanity..  Which is clearly what Lief and other people think.  I'll give you the strong benefit of a doubt here and say that from this post, and other interactions I've had with you so far on this forum, that you are not an anti-Mormon bigot.  Your observation that Mormons strongly supported Romney is not a bigoted observation.  It is no more bigoted than saying that Catholics strongly supported JFK or that blacks supported Obama.

Point is, there is a world's worth of difference from saying that "Mormons are generally strongly conservative on issues and strongly favor the Republican Party" or even "I disagree with a lot of Mormons on issues like abortion because I think that many are a little backwards on the matter" from blanket statements and assumptions that Lief has made Mitt Romney is likely a racist because the Mormon leadership supported a ban on black leadership fifty years ago.  We must clearly draw the line between opposition and outright stereotyping, which is what many here fail to do on a bunch of matters.
25  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Voting Booth / Re: Mideast Voting Booth: July 2014 Elections on: July 18, 2014, 08:34:19 pm
1) Spiral
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 523

Login with username, password and session length


Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines