Except in the Mormon church he never had that kind of power if followers believe their faith and how their supposed word of god is told to them.
US Town Hall Debate |OT| When is the election? What are the names of the candidates?
- Thread starter pigeon
- Start date
- Status
Except in the Mormon church he never had that kind of power if followers believe their faith and how their supposed word of god is told to them.
Sickening
What was his alt?
I think it was called Dreamcaster.
No wonder he took offense to Warren saying she was part Native American.
geez they cant even get their jokes right.. Romney was arguing about "acts of terror"
I H8 Memes
Member
Freshmaker
I am Korean.
If one goes and reads historical accounts of what Smith and his gang were up to back in their heyday, he's a damn hard man to like much less equate to Jesus.
Lol I find it funny how they made Obama look like the demographic that's supposed to be voting for Romney. Equally funny is how they label Biden as a "cranky old guy" when they're trying to appeal to cranky old guys. And then this shit works.
it was only because it trended on twitter and facebook so it became a story to report. Lots of people just found it an amusing phrase.
It's not like all the left leaning pundits couldn't wait to slam Mitt with it. It did highlight a rather suspect answer that involved more showings of the exchange and the exchange itself has been talked about more than the binders (by serious folks) The Binders is a harmless joke to amuse ourselves like... you goin to jail!
EDIT: oh yea and as Veezy reminded me, the story got bigger because he was challenged on it by the people the story was about. forgot that part
The idea that a grown ass man, who was at the time in business for years, didn't have a single fucking female contact in his Rolodex is pathetic. The fact he had to go out searching the land, like women with degrees, even back then, were rare precious flowers, is worse.
But the fact that he went to an organization that existed in order to put together candidates for him to hire, and the idea they brought out binder full of female applicants, is just sad. It's not offense, it's fucking sad.
The kicker is, that shit never happened, at least not the way he told. He lied about something that never fucking happened that makes him actually look bad. How he could do that is just... I can't even imagine it. Seriously, he went in his head and thought "to explain how I care about women getting hired, I need a story. Oh, I got it! I'll say that I received binders full of female applicants from a hiring group. That'll do it!" Dude's been lying this whole election cycle and somehow believes his own bull shit.
So, I don't know if that's offensive or stupid or funny or what, but I do know that it's pretty damn sad.
Eh, he has a point. He's being dickish about it, but he has a point. Not sure if he believes he's helping, but free speech and all that.
Monocle
Member
Yeah that guy should really stop making books that educate people.
(Probably missing something here.)
ClassyPenguin
Banned
PZ Myers> Richard Dawkins.
Hitchens is still my favorite of the Four Horsemen, just because he was so well read literature-wise and a brilliant speaker, even though I disagreed with a lot of his stuff.
Hitchens is still my favorite of the Four Horsemen, just because he was so well read literature-wise and a brilliant speaker, even though I disagreed with a lot of his stuff.
He mocked the LDS religion for following Smith, that might have brought out the comment. Other than that, I have no idea. He is kinda like the leftist version of Limbaugh in some ways.
Richard Dawkins? The evolutionary biologist? From Oxford? The Left's version of Limbaugh?
Because he talks shit about religious belief?
I don't really know who else he would be comparable to, it was a lazy comparison that was easy to make. They both say shit to rile the other side up is what I would associate with them.
Well, in that leaked video Romney joked about it, saying it'd be easier for him in this election if his parents were of Hispanic heritage. Then he went "I joke about that, but no, seriously, it would be."
I dunno, maybe "the -insert popular religious figure- of atheists." Dawkins doesn't have much to do with politics outside of talking about religion and science funding.
I'm watching Rush's analysis. A few things stand out to me.
1. I never realized that Jack Donaghy is a straight up physical and vocal parody of Rush. The weird head movements, hand gestures, and speech patterns. That is 100% Rush.
2. He's arguing that the media is so biased and are giving Obama a win to appear fair and balanced when, in fact, the media is doing everything it can to make it seem like a tie at best, Obama eeked out a hollow win at worst. He's actually arguing the exact opposite of what is happening, even though the actual events are in his side's favor to begin with. The media as a whole, even the left leaning outlets, has been helping Romney FAR more than Obama. Because the narrative is better for them when it seems much closer and that Romney is having a huge come back and is on equal standing with the president. But Rush is still using the "liberal mainstream media" argument when it makes dramatically less sense. The liberal mainstream media isn't the mainstream media at all anymore. The conservative mainstream media is in charge and has been in charge for quite a while. So Rush still complaining about the liberal bias when the media is unquestionably showing a conservative bias for ratings and narrative purposes makes no sense at all. He doesn't need to blow that dog whistle when even the liberal places are showing conservative bias. I don't understand that at all.
3. He actually is saying that someone lying and not getting called on it doesn't mean you win. When that's exactly what happened in the first debate. Had Obama called Romney on anything in the first debate, it wouldn't have been so one sided. "Lying in a debate is a negative". "In their world, lies are counted as truth if each one is not refuted." Rush considers himself new media. Also, Candy was feeding Obama lines all night and Obama couldn't have done it without her. Which sounds to me like he's acknowledging Obama won the debate, even in a very backhanded way. But earlier he said Romney dominated and anyone saying Obama won was just liberal media. Rush might be THE supreme troll.
4. His job seems pretty awesome. He gets paid to state his opinions as loudly and obnoxiously as possible. He doesn't even have to agree with them (and I've always suspected he doesn't agree with everything he says and is intentionally trolling for entertainment, much like Glenn Beck). They don't have to make sense. It's a dream job, really. He gets to ramble for 3 hours a day and get paid quite handsomely. What a good deal.
1. I never realized that Jack Donaghy is a straight up physical and vocal parody of Rush. The weird head movements, hand gestures, and speech patterns. That is 100% Rush.
2. He's arguing that the media is so biased and are giving Obama a win to appear fair and balanced when, in fact, the media is doing everything it can to make it seem like a tie at best, Obama eeked out a hollow win at worst. He's actually arguing the exact opposite of what is happening, even though the actual events are in his side's favor to begin with. The media as a whole, even the left leaning outlets, has been helping Romney FAR more than Obama. Because the narrative is better for them when it seems much closer and that Romney is having a huge come back and is on equal standing with the president. But Rush is still using the "liberal mainstream media" argument when it makes dramatically less sense. The liberal mainstream media isn't the mainstream media at all anymore. The conservative mainstream media is in charge and has been in charge for quite a while. So Rush still complaining about the liberal bias when the media is unquestionably showing a conservative bias for ratings and narrative purposes makes no sense at all. He doesn't need to blow that dog whistle when even the liberal places are showing conservative bias. I don't understand that at all.
3. He actually is saying that someone lying and not getting called on it doesn't mean you win. When that's exactly what happened in the first debate. Had Obama called Romney on anything in the first debate, it wouldn't have been so one sided. "Lying in a debate is a negative". "In their world, lies are counted as truth if each one is not refuted." Rush considers himself new media. Also, Candy was feeding Obama lines all night and Obama couldn't have done it without her. Which sounds to me like he's acknowledging Obama won the debate, even in a very backhanded way. But earlier he said Romney dominated and anyone saying Obama won was just liberal media. Rush might be THE supreme troll.
4. His job seems pretty awesome. He gets paid to state his opinions as loudly and obnoxiously as possible. He doesn't even have to agree with them (and I've always suspected he doesn't agree with everything he says and is intentionally trolling for entertainment, much like Glenn Beck). They don't have to make sense. It's a dream job, really. He gets to ramble for 3 hours a day and get paid quite handsomely. What a good deal.
I think that's probably just a coincidence. It's also 100% Alec Baldwin.
Ugh. Except not. In any way. Even if I had any particular tendency to like the guy I'd still take offence at this ridiculous idea.
That said, good to see that the American progressive movement is still big on eating its own young. /sarcasm
Ironic coincidence considering their polar opposite view points on everything.
travisbickle
Member
Richard Dawkins is one of the top scientists around. Religion has issues with the books he has written, tweets aren't going to change their opinion. His whimsical postings on twitter are trying to get indoctrinated teens to question their religion. If there's anyone who should be using 140 characters or fewer to criticise religion it's Dawkin because you can Google the guy and educate yourself.
That wasn't criticism. There's a fine line between insults and criticism, but that was nowhere near it.
Those comments were rather unnecessary and unproductive. Mostly, they were unbecoming. I say that as an atheist, and a fan of Richard Dawkins. He can do better.
Hahahaha.
Intellectual movements derived from reason don't actually have popes, prophets or equivalents.
That's kinda the whole point. No individual is sacrosanct or an authority beholden upon others. The only things that matters is the authority of truth, evidence and reason itself.
travisbickle
Member
If you find the point insulting, then there's no difference between reading it as a twitter post or in The God Delusion, except for the number of words he uses to express his opinion.
trineo_feo
Member
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Winnie the Pimp
Member
David Incorporated Esq.
Member
Do a majority of Mormons actually buy into the golden tablets story? I've always figured that modern Mormonism is simply a cultural identity and much less about the religion.
Yes, in its entirety. Magic glasses and all.
ElectricBlue187
Member
Do you think his comments would fly if posted on GAF?
Even the guy who posted them was afraid of getting banned for it
My question was not about those who identify as Mormons, but those who believe in the truth as laid out by Adams, which is what Dawkins was talking about. I don't know how well those two groups overlap.
Why does it matter how it works on GAF? I am asking a different question altogether. Given the sentiment, how else would you express it? People are saying his message is correct but he is too shrill about it. You said he is too shrill about it. I am asking people how they suggest it be said. And just so I am putting up my own answer, I would say something like...
I think people who follow Adams and his religion are ignorant and if in a position of power they are dangerous.
Is that shrill?
The exact same comment was made directly toward me about a month ago, there was no punishment.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
By the way, did anyone else catch Romney basically say that he will accomplish his goals in 8 years? So Obama is only allowed 4 years to bring us back from one of the worst recessions of our lifetime, but Romney needs 8 years to improve on the already occurring recovery. L.O.L.
haha, oh wow. I missed that in PoliGAF
Baraka in the White House
2-Terms of Kombat
I think the more egregious Romney fallacy was repeatedly insisting that he could create millions of jobs then trying to get a, "GUBMIN'T NO CREATE JERBS" stadium chant going.
In person, carefully, over a period of months.
Bornstellar
Member
And what if they proved they were not ignorant on the issue, but had come to a different conclusion?
Well, that's kind of my point. I think the more important question to ask is not "How do I make people stop being Mormon?" That's a pretty unproductive strategy in a whole variety of ways. The question to ask is "How do I make people stop opposing issues I consider to be human rights?" That can be accomplished without really grappling with religion at all. Remember, some of the largest progressive changes in America were driven by waves of progressive Christian converts.
Obviously, some people disagree with me and would rather eradicate religion altogether, and I mean, I guess that's okay with me, but I think they need to find another strategy than to play Judas, because as a former Catholic, I can tell you we know how to handle Judas.
edit: On consideration, Judas isn't the right reference; Pontius Pilate might be.
ElectricBlue187
Member
I don't think so, though maybe it would help if you gave some reason why they are dangerous besides ugh religion
Dangerous to those who don't believe or don't believe in their God or dogma. trying to legislate their religious beliefs on many others who want choice in their personal lives and have been granted that choice in the constitution ... standin on a platform of "sanctity" that they feel allows them such an infringement.
Just because they will not pass a law to make Mormonism or Catholisism a state religion does not mean they won't pass a shit-ton of laws or executive orders that align with their doctrine imposing their rules on the rest of us.
Look at Bushes nonsense with Schiavo case and stem cell research and more or less setting science back 8 years in this country. He was even less dangerous than these two appear to be if you watched the primary and paid attention to anything Ryan said before he was picked for mate.
- Status