ForumGarden

OK--I am not a religious person, despite that,I have no problem with anyone's religion. Believe what you will. I know many Mormons and their families and they live in my opinion, exemplary lives. None of them however are running for president of the United States and making major decisions that will affect not only me but everyone else. How can I possibly vote for someone who believes that Joseph Smith found Golden Tablets on September 22, 1823 and translated them into the Book of Mormon, which states that God lives on a planet near the star of Kolob, and that American Indians are the lost tribe of Israel, that the Garden of Eden is in Missouri and that Temple Undergarments will protect against Fire,Knives,Bullets and Satan. I like Romney as a person and admire his past business acumen but am very concerned how his religious beliefs will affect his decision making.

BTW-----I have even greater concerns about Obama.

It's too bad a candidate needs to raise hundreds of millions of dollars to become president. If it wasn't so, you'd have better choices of who to vote for.

The only politician I've ever felt lived his religious beliefs while in office was Carter.

Lon;1404622 wrote: OK--I am not a religious person, despite that,I have no problem with anyone's religion. Believe what you will. I know many Mormons and their families and they live in my opinion, exemplary lives. None of them however are running for president of the United States and making major decisions that will affect not only me but everyone else. How can I possibly vote for someone who believes that Joseph Smith found Golden Tablets on September 22, 1823 and translated them into the Book of Mormon, which states that God lives on a planet near the star of Kolob, and that American Indians are the lost tribe of Israel, that the Garden of Eden is in Missouri and that Temple Undergarments will protect against Fire,Knives,Bullets and Satan. I like Romney as a person and admire his past business acumen but am very concerned how his religious beliefs will affect his decision making.

BTW-----I have even greater concerns about Obama.


It seems that there is competition for the lost tribe of Israel, since the Rastafarians claim the same thing. The physics is interesting about how the planet Earth was moved from Kolob to its current location when God became pissed at it. How did the "chosen people" get from Missouri to the Middle East? Did Noah set sail on the Mississippi and get lost on the way back? So many questions....

flopstock;1404632 wrote: The only politician I've ever felt lived his religious beliefs while in office was Carter.


The one that was the biggest stretch for me was Nixon as a Quaker. That one was such a stretch that it resembled a Monty Python sketch.

Lon;1404622 wrote: OK--I am not a religious person, despite that,I have no problem with anyone's religion. Believe what you will. I know many Mormons and their families and they live in my opinion, exemplary lives. None of them however are running for president of the United States and making major decisions that will affect not only me but everyone else. How can I possibly vote for someone who believes that Joseph Smith found Golden Tablets on September 22, 1823 and translated them into the Book of Mormon, which states that God lives on a planet near the star of Kolob, and that American Indians are the lost tribe of Israel, that the Garden of Eden is in Missouri and that Temple Undergarments will protect against Fire,Knives,Bullets and Satan. I like Romney as a person and admire his past business acumen but am very concerned how his religious beliefs will affect his decision making.

BTW-----I have even greater concerns about Obama.I lived in Utah for a time. I find that they are alot like the Baptists back home: some good, some "backslid". Very few of them wore the Holy Underwear. I haven't seen any peeking out under Romney's shirt. I don't imagine he'll screw up any worse than our current president. In fact, I would expect him to screw up in basically the same way.



koan;1404626 wrote: It's too bad a candidate needs to raise hundreds of millions of dollars to become president. If it wasn't so, you'd have better choices of who to vote for.Ain't that the truth!



flopstock;1404632 wrote: The only politician I've ever felt lived his religious beliefs while in office was Carter.:-2 That's right. :-3 I hadn't considered that.

What is it about Romney's "business acumen" that you admire, Lon?

Very few of them wore the Holy Underwear.


That's just too monty python for anyone to be able to take seriously.

anneboleyn;1404711 wrote: what is it about romney's "business acumen" that you admire, lon?


profits

a lot easier to make profit when you begin life in profit, when your backers have been profitable, when your goal is to deny profit to others & to work in the direction of that goal. Not impressed with the romney suckcess.

gmc;1404714 wrote: That's just too monty python for anyone to be able to take seriously.
:D We non-Mormons joked about the underwear when I lived in Utah. Not sure how Mormons feel about it or how seriously they take it. I don't think it's very widespread, though. I think it a little odd to let underwear influence a vote.

Accountable;1404773 wrote: We non-Mormons joked about the underwear when I lived in Utah. Not sure how Mormons feel about it or how seriously they take it. I don't think it's very widespread, though. I think it a little odd to let underwear influence a vote.


It's not the underwear Accountable. It's the idiocy behind it. Planet Kolub (sp?), Eden in Missouri, the whole ball of wax. It's a whacky cult. Even an atheist can see the insanity of Mormonism over Xianity.

AnneBoleyn;1404774 wrote: It's not the underwear Accountable. It's the idiocy behind it. Planet Kolub (sp?), Eden in Missouri, the whole ball of wax. It's a whacky cult. Even an atheist can see the insanity of Mormonism over Xianity.


In my first career I was a licensed Funeral Director/Embalmer with over 2,000 funerals and we had folks from the local LDS Church come in to dress out deceased Mormon's in special undergarments.

I hate to once again vote for the lesser of two evils, but will probably vote for Mitt.

AnneBoleyn;1404774 wrote: It's not the underwear Accountable. It's the idiocy behind it. Planet Kolub (sp?), Eden in Missouri, the whole ball of wax. It's a whacky cult. Even an atheist can see the insanity of Mormonism over Xianity.


Spoken from ignorance.

Ever met a Mormon? Would you know even if you had?

You don't want to vote for him. So don't. I'm certainly not. You don't have to make up silly excuses.

President Obama's professed Christianity doesn't seem to bother you.

Who is your post directed to, Mr. A.?

I don't make a point of looking, but I have noticed quite a few people wearing their undergarments where I work. I encounter a lot more civilians during the day than you probably did when you were here, Acc.

AnneBoleyn;1404780 wrote: Who is your post directed to, Mr. A.?
Oops. Sorry. Simultaneous posts I guess. Fixed now. It was for you.

I have met Mormons. I am well traveled, I have held residence in several states. Although, I will say, most of the Mormons I have known were proselytizing, on their missions, in the big evil apple of NY. I guess they are not the best examples. Probably the best example is an average person who just happened to be born Mormon. I have been to Salt Lake, have traveled in Utah. I have read the book of Mormon & I stand by what I said. J. Smith was a charleton who fooled lots of folks. Their religion is a scam & I hold their beliefs to be childish, without much intellect. So there. :yh_tong2

Now go yell about Obama. Professed Xianity? You have no facts to base that on. You are too smart for birtherism, unless I am complimenting you based on your likeability.

SnoozeAgain;1404782 wrote: I don't make a point of looking, but I have noticed quite a few people wearing their undergarments where I work. I encounter a lot more civilians during the day than you probably did when you were here, Acc.
I'm sure you do. Plus, you've been there a lot longer than I was.

AnneBoleyn;1404786 wrote: Now go yell about Obama. Professed Xianity? You have no facts to base that on. You are too smart for birtherism, unless I am complimenting you based on your likeability.No facts?? He was a member of what's-his-name's church for 20 years. Are you saying he was just faking it for political gain?

eta: Birtherism???????????

Accountable;1404788 wrote: No facts?? He was a member of what's-his-name's church for 20 years. Are you saying he was just faking it for political gain?

eta: Birtherism???????????


You may not "approve" of Rev. Wright, but he is a Xian minister. So, how does that make President Obama a "professed" Xian. He IS a Xian. You are the one suggesting he is not by saying "professed". No, I am not suggesting it is fake. How the hell would I know his inner thoughts? You don't either.

By birtherism, I was suggesting you are making things up --- like doubting he is what he says he is.

Accountable;1404787 wrote: I'm sure you do. Plus, you've been there a lot longer than I was.


Well, no offense but you implied that Mormons don't wear their temple garments as much as most people think and you're basing that on... not much.

AnneBoleyn;1404791 wrote: You may not "approve" of Rev. Wright, but he is a Xian minister. So, how does that make President Obama a "professed" Xian. He IS a Xian. You are the one suggesting he is not by saying "professed". No, I am not suggesting it is fake. How the hell would I know his inner thoughts? You don't either.

By birtherism, I was suggesting you are making things up --- like doubting he is what he says he is.Oh, I see. When I say "professed" I meant exactly that without any sarcasm. You were badmouthing Romney and Mormons in general, and Christians in general, but oddly not Obama.

The implication wasn't that Obama's a Muslim. I don't care about his religion. The implication was that you only care about someone's religion when you've already made up your mind that you don't like him, but can overlook it when it suits you.



SnoozeAgain;1404792 wrote: Well, no offense but you implied that Mormons don't wear their temple garments as much as most people think and you're basing that on... not much.
I humbly bow to your superior knowledge.

A former brother-in-law (and four nieces and nephews, and about fourteen

grand nieces and nephews... for now) was Mormon, and the n's and n's

still are.

Some of the things about that 'religion' are pretty cool, like family home

evening and food storage and all but the rest of it is pretty bad. The women

are still expected to be kept down and aren't allowed into heaven unless

a man gets them there.

As to the whole undergarments thing, the Mormons I've been around were

pretty into it, even in the midst of those hot valley summers, with garments

made of nylon. Yuck. And there are some I'm told who wear garments even

into the shower, who will take out one arm and wash it and put it back, etc.

How they launder them I'm not sure, maybe stay out of them as short of

time as possible while switching one to the next.

As to not voting for him because of his 'religion' I can tell myself it isn't

right... but then again, there are many more things IMO to not vote

for him around.

Oddly enough, his religion is not high on the list of things that would prevent me from voting for him.

valerie;1404796 wrote: As to not voting for him because of his 'religion' I can tell myself it isn't

right... but then again, there are many more things IMO to not vote

for him around.LarsMac;1404797 wrote: Oddly enough, his religion is not high on the list of things that would prevent me from voting for him.
That's my point.

Of course President Obama has built an even more impressive list. Both of the Republocrat candidates and the organization that supports them are equally bad for America. How many times are you people going to vote for the lesser of two evils before you get tired of electing evil?

Sadly, unless we can truly develop a third or fourth party with some weight to them, and show that more options are better, we end up casting away votes on also-rans.

If Your guy, Paul, had spent his time and money trying to drum up that third party support instead of playing the Republican game all year, he might have been able to field a genuine offensive. Instead, he has only squandered whatever credibility he might have had, and left us with these two ninnies to choose from.

Whenever I have a choice like that, I tend to lean towards the incumbent.

I am REALLY disappointed with the Republicans. After all that time and money, they couldn't find someone more promising than Romney?

For crying out loud, he makes me look back fondly towards the Ford administration.

Of course President Obama has built an even more impressive list. Both of the Republocrat candidates and the organization that supports them are equally bad for America. How many times are you people going to vote for the lesser of two evils before you get tired of electing evil?


That's easy. I haven't found a third party to endorse. I'm not a libertarian, no one has invented my party yet. I do regret not having voted for Nader in 2000. I despised Al Gore, yet I voted for him. Guilty as charged in that instance.

Accountable;1404814 wrote: That's my point.

Of course President Obama has built an even more impressive list. Both of the Republocrat candidates and the organization that supports them are equally bad for America. How many times are you people going to vote for the lesser of two evils before you get tired of electing evil?


At this point, we have to deal with the reality of the two party system.

There is some folks out there with their name on the ballot, but they are fringe candidates.

It seems to me that the republicans are saying, you choice is to vote for that guy, and suffer four more years of nothing getting done 'cause we won't work with him, or voting for our guy and doing things our way.

It seems to me that the republicans are saying, you choice is to vote for that guy, and suffer four more years of nothing getting done 'cause we won't work with him, or voting for our guy and doing things our way.


That's extortion. Actually, I don't understand why Pennsylvania Rethugs aren't charged with Racketeering, as there is a video clip of them conspiring together for voter ID laws in an effort to stop Obama from winning their state, using voter ID as their means to this end. They speak of it openly.

Accountable is certainly not all wrong, there is so much he says that I agree with, even some criticisms of yours truly.

It befuddles me as to why anybody would care what religion Romney is.

When it comes to religion, I suspect most everybody views other peoples religion as, hmm, silly.

When I look at who to vote for, I want to hear about what he plans to do when President. Background on his education past performance on previous jobs.

LarsMac;1404868 wrote: At this point, we have to deal with the reality of the two party system.

There is some folks out there with their name on the ballot, but they are fringe candidates.

It seems to me that the republicans are saying, you choice is to vote for that guy, and suffer four more years of nothing getting done 'cause we won't work with him, or voting for our guy and doing things our way.


For as long as you think that you are playing their game.

Until they stop even pretending to be a democracy the only thing that can hurt them is a protest vote. Whether it be on a no hoper candidate or a deliberately spoilt paper anything that says I am not apathetic, I want to vote but I am not prepared to vote for either of you will hurt them - as long as it is delivered in large enough numbers.

tude dog;1404883 wrote: It befuddles me as to why anybody would care what religion Romney is.

When it comes to religion, I suspect most everybody views other peoples religion as, hmm, silly.

When I look at who to vote for, I want to hear about what he plans to do when President. Background on his education past performance on previous jobs.


How many times have the candidates promised the Earth during the election and delivered nothing once in office - election pledges are nothing but hot air until you punish the candidates for not keeping them. How do you do that in the current two party system?

Bryn Mawr;1404885 wrote: How many times have the candidates promised the Earth during the election and delivered nothing once in office - election pledges are nothing but hot air until you punish the candidates for not keeping them. How do you do that in the current two party system?


I can see some real advantages to forcing the politicians to form a coalition government and actually work together. I'd also like to see something like the Canadian system where the politicians can't start campaigning until 3 months before an election. But I'd settle for a strong third party - preferably one that entails fiscal responsibility without the requirement to hate certain groups of people.

Wandrin;1404888 wrote: I can see some real advantages to forcing the politicians to form a coalition government and actually work together. I'd also like to see something like the Canadian system where the politicians can't start campaigning until 3 months before an election. But I'd settle for a strong third party - preferably one that entails fiscal responsibility without the requirement to hate certain groups of people.


Another possibility is to ban political parties and force each candidate to stand as an independent with legal redress for broken election pledges :wah:

Bryn Mawr;1404892 wrote: Another possibility is to ban political parties and force each candidate to stand as an independent with legal redress for broken election pledges :wah:


I like that idea too. I think that the unlimited corporate financing and unlimited spending by lobbyists will have to be the first thing to change, since that will keep any other change from happening.

Quite some time ago we had a third party to choose from. The two party system 'Liberal and 'labor were, in the minds of voters in melt down. Then the 'democrats came along and their slogan was "keeping the barstards honest" .....boy did they get a lot of votes. Now we have the 'Greens that pretty much hold the balance of power in parliament. Labor can pass anything they want as long as the Greens like it . lol lol lol It's all bullshit anyway .

Bryn Mawr;1404884 wrote: For as long as you think that you are playing their game.

Until they stop even pretending to be a democracy the only thing that can hurt them is a protest vote. Whether it be on a no hoper candidate or a deliberately spoilt paper anything that says I am not apathetic, I want to vote but I am not prepared to vote for either of you will hurt them - as long as it is delivered in large enough numbers.


We are working to get "None of the Above" approved as a valid choice on the ballot.

Make them go back and find another choice.

Bryn Mawr;1404884 wrote: For as long as you think that you are playing their game.

Until they stop even pretending to be a democracy the only thing that can hurt them is a protest vote. Whether it be on a no hoper candidate or a deliberately spoilt paper anything that says I am not apathetic, I want to vote but I am not prepared to vote for either of you will hurt them - as long as it is delivered in large enough numbers.
Thank you. This is the point I try to make. It generally falls on deaf ears.

Bryn Mawr;1404885 wrote: How many times have the candidates promised the Earth during the election and delivered nothing once in office - election pledges are nothing but hot air until you punish the candidates for not keeping them. How do you do that in the current two party system?


Actually, we are (hopefully) getting rid of Obama for keeping his promises.

LarsMac;1404934 wrote: We are working to get "None of the Above" approved as a valid choice on the ballot.

Make them go back and find another choice.


That is the party I've voted for at the past several elections. Once we get above 10% of those bothering to vote then they'll no longer be able to hide behind "spoilt papers" and recognise a serious protest vote against a flawed system.

tude dog;1404954 wrote: Actually, we are (hopefully) getting rid of Obama for keeping his promises.


I'm not holding my breath - from here it looks like the opposition is committing political suicide.

Regardless of what you thing of his policies, admire the man for keeping his promises - an honest politician is as common as rocking horse poo.

Bryn Mawr;1404967 wrote: Regardless of what you thing of his policies, admire the man for keeping his promises - an honest politician is as common as rocking horse poo.


Like I would admire an armed robber who kept his word not to shoot me if I just hand over my wallet.

tude's a tough guy. Don't you see his avatar?

Of course, since it is congress that spends money, sets tax rates, passes laws, and decides whether to regulate Wall Street, the president is primarily a figurehead. I'm watching the congressional races since the last thing we need is a few more years of a congress who declares that its primary goal is to make the president look bad.

Bryn Mawr;1404966 wrote: That is the party I've voted for at the past several elections. Once we get above 10% of those bothering to vote then they'll no longer be able to hide behind "spoilt papers" and recognise a serious protest vote against a flawed system.


There's the real problem.

Those that don't bother to vote.

Most of the recent presidents have actually received less than 25% of the qualified voters' approval.

And they always claim a mandate.

Obama received 32.5% of the Eligible voter count in 2008, the highest in many years for a winner.

At 62%, 2008 voter turn-out was the highest since 1968.

Simply put, The majority of eligible voters has not voted for the President of the United states for many years.

LarsMac;1404999 wrote: There's the real problem.

Those that don't bother to vote.

Most of the recent presidents have actually received less than 25% of the qualified voters' approval.

And they always claim a mandate.

Obama received 32.5% of the Eligible voter count in 2008, the highest in many years for a winner.

At 62%, 2008 voter turn-out was the highest since 1968.

Simply put, The majority of eligible voters has not voted for the President of the United states for many years.


Do you think that the reason that so many do not vote is because they have given up on the system and don't think it really matters who wins the election, or because they just don't care?

Wandrin;1405010 wrote: Do you think that the reason that so many do not vote is because they have given up on the system and don't think it really matters who wins the election, or because they just don't care?


Over here it is because people are giving up on the process

AnneBoleyn;1404992 wrote: tude's a tough guy. Don't you see his avatar?


naw, not at all.

I ain't tough at all. That avatar looks much like my favorite target pistol.

In real life I avoid stupid places which may cause problems.

I knew eventually somebody would read to much in my avatar. But then, no skin off my nose.

Read too much? You're extreme right politics, which means pro gun, and you post as if you've just shot a bullet that will kill your opponent. Not too scary because you're mostly firing blanks

Please let me know if I've got anything wrong.

Perhaps you're a communist.