In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:


God, it must really burn you to know your side lost the Presidential
election by a significant margin for you to be so "off the hook" and blind
to the damage you're doing to the LDS and Mitt Romney's chances by making
wild, unsubstantiated charges. People knew all about the "birther" bull,
but they voted for Obama anyway. They were telling you "we don't give a
damn about your preposterous accusations" and you *still* don't get it.

Obama's margin was roughly the average margin for two way races over the
last few. Hardly "significant". I would argue that the signficant loss
in '08 was the Congress and that has been largely reversed. (At least
for now).
They voted for Obama post birther just like they voted for Bush
after all sorts of slander. Big whoop. Just shows that the electorate
isn't terribly interested in the weird **** brought up by either side.


It's so ironic that a Mormon would spend so much time preaching to the choir
instead of looking for converts. The LDS church was smart enough to dump
polygamy *eventually* and to follow the customs of their country. You, on
the other hand, gleefully top post away as Mormons once flaunted their
polygamy, a decision that caused the Deseret Territory, the Mormon's
"promised land" to be chopped up and given away to others.
You aren't really trying to make a point here, right? This is well
crafted and very subtle sarcasm.




Many people believe the LDS is a cult filled with people who don't quite
seem like your average Americans.
Many thought the same of Catholics around the time of JFK. Just shows
that religious bigotry is a long-standing tradition in American
politics.


FWIW, a recent poll now shows that the Tea Party is more disliked by
Americans than Muslims and atheists. Don't count on them for help in 2012.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/20...party-muslims/


I have a problem with any poll where we don't have access to the
actual wording, especially when it claims to be involved in trending.

On other political news, the Republican Party of Virginia announced on
Twitter that "Newt Gingrich did not submit the required 10k signatures and
has not qualified for the VA primary." The Gingrich campaign quickly
announced that it would "pursue an aggressive write-in campaign" even though
Virginia laws prohibit such a write-in campaign. Yes, a man who pays
careful attention and knows the law is just what we need in the White House
and that, apparently, isn't Newt.
Nor Obama since there are a number of states (Indiana among others)
where the petitions getting Obama on the primary ballot in '08 have been
proven to have a fair number of forged signatures. I think these laws
are only observed in the breach no matter which party.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz