Lounge of Tomorrow - Mitt Romney and Mormonism

Lounge of Tomorrow (http://74.208.121.111/LoT/index.php)

- Daily Grind (http://74.208.121.111/LoT/forumdisplay.php?f=18)

- - Mitt Romney and Mormonism (http://74.208.121.111/LoT/showthread.php?t=7109)

Akaka always made me laugh.
:D

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3894 (Post 177865)

And how about last names, eh? Butts, Willfahrt, and Hooker - all names I've had to read aloud from class lists.

I was bored one day at work and started typing naughty words into the global address book. There used to be a guy in another country with the last name, Fvck. And as I looked again just now, there's a guy in India with the last name Sh!t.

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman (Post 177522)

Only if he's fervent. (And that would be the same disqualifier for any candidate who's fervent about any religious faith.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moonliner (Post 177558)

Would you support an atheist for President of the United States?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Not Afraid (Post 177624)

The less religion plays a part in a politicians life, the happier I am with that politician.

Quote:

Originally Posted by €uroMeinke (Post 177671)

The more people talk about their religious beliefs the less likely I would vote for them

I didn't expect to like Mitt, but I thought I'd give it a moment and see how the game played out. I don't like many Republican candidates, mostly for their pro-business stance and inclination to benefit the wealthy instead of regular people, and definitely I oppose their social issues.

I initially said "hells yeah" to the thought of an atheist in the White House, but then came across the post talking about fervent anybody being disturbing, and that was even more right.

My big question is if you can step outside of your personal beliefs and do what is best for *all* citizens, many of whom will not be in your religious or spiritual camp. I was willing to gamble on John Kerry, though he's a Catholic ( a religion I can't get behind very well at all) but I thought he could keep religion and politics separate and govern for *all* citizens.

So will I vote for Mitt? Not likely.

Seemed as good as a place an any to post this:

Ron Paul earns support of Nevada brothel owner

Quote:

Campaigning through Northern Nevada today, Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul picked up the enthusiastic support of Nevada brothel owner Dennis Hof.

After sitting through a 20-minute press conference with Paul, Hof vowed to put up a collection box outside the door of his Moonlight Bunny Ranch brothel to take up contributions for the candidate who he says, "Makes a lot of sense, doesn't he?"

Yeah, it's old news (2-1/2 weeks), but it amused me.

Then there is Ima Hogg...

The weirdest family names I can think of are Ivol and Electa (no R).

I keep clicking on this thread and wondering why I keep ending up at the "Weird Family Names" thread. ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Not Afraid (Post 177983)

I keep clicking on this thread and wondering why I keep ending up at the "Weird Family Names" thread. ;)

It's the only way some of us can contribute to a thread in the Daily Grind section.

Quote:

Originally Posted by alphabassettgrrl (Post 177908)

[but I thought he could keep religion and politics separate and govern for *all* citizens.

What exactly does "govern for all citizens" mean?

I disagree with many stances of many politicians. Does this mean they don't govern for me? I don't share the influences that they have had in their lives. Does this mean they don't govern for me?

Elected officials govern for the United States of America. I do not know of one with whom I completely agree.

I've never understood this in terms of the "religious" issue. It would apply to anyone who thinks taxes should be raised for whatever reason, or supports socialized health care. If Hillary is elected, is it valid to say she doesn't govern for me because she will most likely push for both? Who the hell cares what the motivations are. The laws and policies effect us all equally.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles (Post 178641)

I've never understood this in terms of the "religious" issue.

For me the "religious issue" is someone who wants to ban abortion or gay marriage because their religion says it's wrong. I'm sure there are agnostic/atheist/spiritual people who also believe it's wrong but you don't see them running for office. In our faces are politicians who say they want to ban abortion because the bible says life begins at conception and that is what I believe. Or they want to ban gay marriage because the bible says it's wrong.

I don't want to see this turn into an abortion/anti-abortion gay marriage/anti-gay marriage debate/derail - I'm trying to explain how the "religious issue" plays out for me.

Do I care what religion people are in my daily life? Not a bit. Do I care if my friends are pro-choice or pro-life in my daily life? Not a bit. But when an elected official wants to ban things that don't effect anyone except the parties directly involved because of their religion, it's an issue to me.

If a candidate came out and said "I'm pro-life and my religion teaches that men and men or women and women should not lay together but I realize and respect that not everyone in this country has those beliefs and I will not try to change the laws to take away those choices" and their voting record showed that I'd totally vote for them.