Well, sh**.

I don't get people who say they would NEVER vote for a person of a certain political party. While you may lean one way or the other, would you rather have an obviously bad person of your preferred party rather than one of "the other side" who might actually do some good?

Au contraire. Back in high school I loved dating Mormons. Those girls always put out, and the higher up in the church Daddy was, the freakier they were. Some rebellion against the cult thing, I think. I've got stories that are Forum worthy of things we did while the Elders were in the other room with the parents divvying up the spoils, er, I mean going over the church budget.

Yep, not much sexier in this world than a hotty in Jesus Jammies with a stifling religion to rebel against. :evil:



As far as Romney, I don't think his Mormonism is any worse than anyone else's religious affiliations. Personally I see Mormonism as more of a big Men's Club than a religion anyway.

The less religion plays a part in a politicians life, the happier I am with that politician. So, Romney would not be high on my list of potential canidates to vote for. I heard his comments several times today while driving around. Besides the fact the I kept thinking of Lloyd Benston's comment to Dan Quayle I was really disturbed by this comment:
No, Mitt, you are wrong. Now, go take your dog on vacation. (Sorry, but I cannot forget nor forgive that cruel act.)

I'm glad Jazzman has his priorities straight!

I can concur that those with a stifling religion to rebel against in fact DO put out.

I suppose that if some Democrat was looking to lower taxes for the rich and remove social aid programs and take art and music out of the classroom, and by some chance got nominated... and if some Republican was looking to raise taxes for the rich and add social aid programs and better fund the arts in the classroom and in the country... then yes. Yes, I would vote Republican.

Nobody is good or bad, everyone is complex and it seems to me that almost everyone does what they're doing because they think they're in the right. What I'm trying to illustrate with the above is that I really, highly disagree with the Republican party's stance on most things, and I'd be only likely to vote for them if they changed their stance to mine.

Also, I hope I'm not proven wrong, but I tend to think that Republican beliefs lend themselves more to what constitutes "obviously bad" behavior in my opinion (i.e. ME ME MEism, money-seeking and war profiteering, etc) and Democrats, less so. Not that the potential for bad behavior doesn't exist on both sides, but to someone who values empathy and social aid, the Democrats always come out smelling fresher - if only in the dirty diaper versus rotting corpse sense.

Any time people start thinking that one political party is truly better than the other, I remember this classic clip from Richard Jeni (RIP). Better words were never spoken.

I do like Richard Jeni, but I'm still not sure why the things he said about Democrats are so horrible.

And sure, everybody's a little dirty, everybody's a little annoying, everybody's a little hypocritical in one way or another.

Though I'm sure you don't agree, it really is OK for me to agree with one set of principles over another. And to keep doing it consistently.

I enjoyed Jeni, but I was always more of a Bill Hicks fan (remember, in this audio clip he's talking about Bush, Sr. and the first gulf war).

...and here's part two of the clip.