wrote in :

Did Mitt lose because he's a Mormon?

I think that played a huge part in his loss.......

Just my opinion!



Looking like a nitwit had a lot to do with it.

Did Mitt lose because he's a Mormon?

I think that played a huge part in his loss.......

Just my opinion!

On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 1:48:44 PM UTC-6, wrote:
Did Mitt lose because he's a Mormon?



I think that played a huge part in his loss.......



Just my opinion!

I saw this recently...Romney's name is code for his philosophy! R-money, as in 'our money' and we're keepin' it!

On 11/07/2012 02:48 PM, wrote:
Did Mitt lose because he's a Mormon?

I think that played a huge part in his loss.......

Just my opinion!


Right or wrong, the perception is that the republicans represent the
wealthy and the democrats represent the working poor and unemployed.

Unfortunately for the republicans, we have a lot of working poor and
unemployed voters.

On Nov 7, 11:48*am, wrote:
Did Mitt lose because he's a Mormon?

I think that played a huge part in his loss.......

Just my opinion!

That he flopped back and forth on issues enought to almost hover above
the fence didn't help.

Harry K

In article ,
says...

Did Mitt lose because he's a Mormon?

I think that played a huge part in his loss.......


I used to vote for Republicans or Democrats - The best candidate...

Then Bush Jr. came along...

After all the economic damage he did, I have vowed to NEVER vote for
another Republican as long as I live.

That is why I did not vote for him (or any other Republicans).

Also the petty politics the Republicans have been playing in the
Congress. Makes them look REAL bad!

On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 13:48:06 -0600, wrote:

Did Mitt lose because he's a Mormon?

I think that played a huge part in his loss.......

Just my opinion!

He lost because he was an idiot against an incumbent idiot.

On Thursday, November 8, 2012 11:22:42 AM UTC-6, wrote:


Before you blame Bush for all of the economic mess you have to look at

the deregulation that allowed it. That was Clinton's doing.

Clinton is the one who dismantled the FDR era banking regulations.

You're getting closer...try Reaganomics!

wrote


Unfortunately for the republicans, we have a lot of working poor and
unemployed voters.

The Republicans preach that anybody -- ANYBODY can become rich if they only
try hard enough. Ever try to sell Amway products? They preach wealth all
the time, but name me even ONE Amway salesperson you personally know who has
made a million dollars. Or even half a million.

Bill Gates has long said that he became rich through luck of the draw, being
born into a wealthy family, having the benefit of the good infrastructure of
Seattle (good schools, etc), etc. This is why he feels that the wealthy OWE
it to society to give back all they can. He recommends the rich give back
at least 50% of their wealth in charitable contributions to society. He and
his dad wrote a book about it a good 15 years ago...

In article ,
wrote:

On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 09:57:41 -0800 (PST), Bob_Villa
wrote:

On Thursday, November 8, 2012 11:22:42 AM UTC-6, wrote:


Before you blame Bush for all of the economic mess you have to look at

the deregulation that allowed it. That was Clinton's doing.

Clinton is the one who dismantled the FDR era banking regulations.

You're getting closer...try Reaganomics!

More like Greenspanomics and that spanned 4 presidents.



I have attributed to the Greenspan/Gates expansion. Greenspan for the
easy money and Gates as a proxy for the great gains in productivity
brought about by computers.
Both worked for a long while and then came to an end.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 13:48:06 -0600, wrote:

Did Mitt lose because he's a Mormon?

I think that played a huge part in his loss.......

Just my opinion!

He lost because he was an idiot against an incumbent idiot.

I think somebody has misspelled "moron".

Bill wrote:
In article ,
says...

Did Mitt lose because he's a Mormon?

I think that played a huge part in his loss.......


I used to vote for Republicans or Democrats - The best candidate...

Then Bush Jr. came along...

After all the economic damage he did, I have vowed to NEVER vote for
another Republican as long as I live.

That is why I did not vote for him (or any other Republicans).

Also the petty politics the Republicans have been playing in the
Congress. Makes them look REAL bad!

Hey ! With Bush as president - and a Republican Congress - we had six years
of absolutely wonderful economic conditions. Had it not been for 9-11,
Katrina, and two wars, it would have been even better.

On 11/8/2012 4:23 PM, Roy wrote:

Perhaps they also need some people who know about rape, abortion and pregnancy. Might save them from ignorant and stupid rants from their
candidates in the next election.

One of the most amusing post-election things I read was a tweet from
Alec Baldwin:

"You know your party is in trouble when people ask did the rape guy win,
and you have to ask which one?"

Well the rape guys both lost, but it's rather amazing how many votes
they did get. Akin got 1,063,698 votes. Mourdock got 1,126,727 votes.
Don't these voters have daughters, wives, nieces, sisters, etc.?

On 11/8/2012 6:42 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Bill wrote:
In article ,
says...

Did Mitt lose because he's a Mormon?

I think that played a huge part in his loss.......


I used to vote for Republicans or Democrats - The best candidate...

Then Bush Jr. came along...

After all the economic damage he did, I have vowed to NEVER vote for
another Republican as long as I live.

That is why I did not vote for him (or any other Republicans).

Also the petty politics the Republicans have been playing in the
Congress. Makes them look REAL bad!

Hey ! With Bush as president - and a Republican Congress - we had six years
of absolutely wonderful economic conditions. Had it not been for 9-11,
Katrina, and two wars, it would have been even better.



I guess you forgot about the 2008 collapse that conveniently became
"that black guy's fault."

Not that the blame lies entirely with Lil Bush, but the economic
conditions were ripe for a fall.

On Thu, 08 Nov 2012 16:59:40 -0800, SMS
wrote:

On 11/8/2012 4:23 PM, Roy wrote:

Perhaps they also need some people who know about rape, abortion and pregnancy. Might save them from ignorant and stupid rants from their
candidates in the next election.

One of the most amusing post-election things I read was a tweet from
Alec Baldwin:

"You know your party is in trouble when people ask did the rape guy win,
and you have to ask which one?"

Well the rape guys both lost, but it's rather amazing how many votes
they did get. Akin got 1,063,698 votes. Mourdock got 1,126,727 votes.
Don't these voters have daughters, wives, nieces, sisters, etc.?

While both of them had rape and abortion in their answers- Akin's
comments were the height of ignorance, but Mourdock's were considered,
respectful and honest. If I was pro-life, I would have to agree
with Mourdock. I'm not-- but I can still respect him for the way he
feels. Listen to the whole answer to the question.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5n1KzTVXuA
33 seconds-

Both were 'playing to their base' -- fortunately for our side-- their
base isn't big enough.

Jim

On Thursday, November 8, 2012 12:22:42 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 08:42:34 -0800, Bill

wrote:



In article ,

says...



Did Mitt lose because he's a Mormon?



I think that played a huge part in his loss.......





I used to vote for Republicans or Democrats - The best candidate...



Then Bush Jr. came along...



After all the economic damage he did, I have vowed to NEVER vote for

another Republican as long as I live.



That is why I did not vote for him (or any other Republicans).





Before you blame Bush for all of the economic mess you have to look at

the deregulation that allowed it. That was Clinton's doing.

Clinton is the one who dismantled the FDR era banking regulations.

Bill Clinton only signed the bill that the GOP house and senate sent him. IT was not his bill. He can be blaimed for going along but the GOP wanted those changes for thirty years.

gonjah wrote:

Hey ! With Bush as president - and a Republican Congress - we had
six years of absolutely wonderful economic conditions. Had it not
been for 9-11, Katrina, and two wars, it would have been even better.



I guess you forgot about the 2008 collapse that conveniently became
"that black guy's fault."

Not that the blame lies entirely with Lil Bush, but the economic
conditions were ripe for a fall.

Not forgetting. In 2008, the Democrats controlled Congress.

On 11/8/2012 8:45 PM, HeyBub wrote:
gonjah wrote:

Hey ! With Bush as president - and a Republican Congress - we had
six years of absolutely wonderful economic conditions. Had it not
been for 9-11, Katrina, and two wars, it would have been even better.



I guess you forgot about the 2008 collapse that conveniently became
"that black guy's fault."

Not that the blame lies entirely with Lil Bush, but the economic
conditions were ripe for a fall.

Not forgetting. In 2008, the Democrats controlled Congress.



So anything good that happened was Bush. Anything bad was congress.

Got cha!

In that case the Republicans really own the bank deregulation and the
crisis that followed.

But I'm with you. Plenty of blame to go around. Congress passed it and
Clinton signed it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-g...b_1449474.html

In article ,
wrote:

Did Mitt lose because he's a Mormon?

I think that played a huge part in his loss.......

Just my opinion!

Don't feel like reading this whole thread, so this may have been posted
already:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/155273/bi...dential-candid
ate-1967.aspx

Gallup says 18% of voters would *not* vote for a Mormon. Shocker for me
was that 40% of us don't even know he's a Mormon.

So assuming that 1/2 the voters are Republican and therefore might
otherwise have voted for him, 1/2 of the 18% of the "knowing" 60% might
have declined to vote for him since they know he's a Mormon and don't
like that. That's a bit more than 5% of the voters he may have lost
because of his religion.

(As far as I'm concerned, Mormons aren't any more stark raving mad than
Catholics, Lutherans or Muslims.)

On Thu, 08 Nov 2012 19:21:39 -0800, SMS
wrote:

Changing the Republican party to appeal to non-whites is going to be
very difficult. They're even beginning to lose their only reliable
Hispanic group, Cuban-Americans.

Huh? Cubans in Miami vote Republican. Puerto Ricans is another
story.

On 11-08-2012 13:56, David Kaye wrote:
try hard enough. Ever try to sell Amway products? They preach wealth all

Buried in the middle of one of their come-on books is the admission that
the average distributor makes $40 per month at it.

If some people are making thousands, how many have to lose money to make
the average be forty dollars?

--
Wes Groleau

€œIsn't embarrassing to quote something you didn't read
and then attack what it didn't say?€�

On 11-08-2012 12:54, gonjah wrote:
I don't buy into the Republican good, Democrat bad, stuff. I like to
look at the numbers.

I believe in voting for the best person for the job.

Unfortunately, that person is almost never on the ballot.

--
Wes Groleau

¡Qué quiero realmente hacer es comer un perrito caliente!
ç§�ã�Œå®Ÿéš›ã�«ã�—ã�Ÿã�„ã�¨æ€�ã�†ä½•ã‚’ホットム‰ãƒƒã‚°ã‚’食ã�¹ã‚‹ã�“ã�¨ã�§ã�‚ã‚‹!
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.org/WWW?itemid=463

In article ,
Jim Elbrecht wrote:



While both of them had rape and abortion in their answers- Akin's
comments were the height of ignorance, but Mourdock's were considered,
respectful and honest. If I was pro-life, I would have to agree
with Mourdock. I'm not-- but I can still respect him for the way he
feels. Listen to the whole answer to the question.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5n1KzTVXuA
33 seconds-

Actually, M's statement was almost word-for-word the outlook of the
Catholic church on the subject. I wondered why nobody brought that up
when he was being portrayed as out the mainstream.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

In article , gonlah
wrote:


A lot of that going around. I was hoping the far-right would follow the
example of Mitt's concession speech and show some class, but that is
obviously not going to happen.

And the far left took the wins by GWB with such equanimity. Heck the
Baldwin Brothers taught Rush Limbaugh everything he needed to know about
threatening to move from the Country and then not doing it.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

In article ,
wrote:


Clinton is the one who dismantled the FDR era banking regulations.

Bill Clinton only signed the bill that the GOP house and senate sent him.
IT was not his bill. He can be blaimed for going along but the GOP wanted
those changes for thirty years.

"Only" signed the bills? Bull****. He went on TV and told us how great
the bills would be.
They were also passed with overwhelming democratic support. The CFMA
that deregulated the derivatives was passed unanimously in the senate

The other part of that is although it was passed by a GOP-controlled
Congress the final vote on passage of the bill to repeal Glass-Stagall
had around 10 nays in the House and passed the Senate by a VOICE vote.
You can't get a whole lot more bipartisan than that. Maybe
bipartisanship isn't always a good thing, huh?
Interesting tidbit, there are about 3 laws that someone or another
has pointed to as "reasons" for the collapse. Every last one of them
was passed with low double digit nays in the House and high single digit
nays in the Senate... if there was even a recorded vote in the Senate.
Also, if you look at the actual votes, you will note that.. although
it pains me deeply to admit this... Barney Franks was the only person in
a leadership position who voted against everyone of these bills every
chance he got. Pelosi, and Reid voted for the bill, even the preliminary
bills passed before the final conference. So Franks is the only with a
legitimate voice in opposition to my mind.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

On Thu, 08 Nov 2012 19:43:25 -0800, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

Did Mitt lose because he's a Mormon?

I think that played a huge part in his loss.......

Just my opinion!

Don't feel like reading this whole thread, so this may have been posted
already:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/155273/bi...dential-candid
ate-1967.aspx

Gallup says 18% of voters would *not* vote for a Mormon. Shocker for me
was that 40% of us don't even know he's a Mormon.

I used to respect Gallup, but they have taken a bunch of misleading
polls and tacked even more misleading headlines on them this season.

If that poll was taken before there was a Mormon candidate-- or if
there was Mormon on both sides I might put more stock in it. 20%
sounds like about the same number as yellow dog Democrats.

This one is a little more telling-
http://www.gallup.com/poll/155285/at...andidates.aspx
43% would pass on an atheist. 40% on a muslim.


So assuming that 1/2 the voters are Republican and therefore might
otherwise have voted for him, 1/2 of the 18% of the "knowing" 60% might
have declined to vote for him since they know he's a Mormon and don't
like that. That's a bit more than 5% of the voters he may have lost
because of his religion.

(As far as I'm concerned, Mormons aren't any more stark raving mad than
Catholics, Lutherans or Muslims.)

I'd add atheists, just to be fair.

Jim

On Fri, 09 Nov 2012 01:24:51 -0500, Wes Groleau
wrote:

On 11-08-2012 12:54, gonjah wrote:
I don't buy into the Republican good, Democrat bad, stuff. I like to
look at the numbers.

I believe in voting for the best person for the job.

Unfortunately, that person is almost never on the ballot.

My ballots have a place to add a name at the very bottom.g

Jim

Kurt Ullman wrote in
m:

In article ,
wrote:


Clinton is the one who dismantled the FDR era banking regulations.

Bill Clinton only signed the bill that the GOP house and senate sent
him. IT was not his bill. He can be blaimed for going along but
the GOP wanted those changes for thirty years.

"Only" signed the bills? Bull****. He went on TV and told us how
great the bills would be.
They were also passed with overwhelming democratic support. The CFMA
that deregulated the derivatives was passed unanimously in the senate

The other part of that is although it was passed by a GOP-controlled
Congress the final vote on passage of the bill to repeal Glass-Stagall
had around 10 nays in the House and passed the Senate by a VOICE vote.
You can't get a whole lot more bipartisan than that. Maybe
bipartisanship isn't always a good thing, huh?
Interesting tidbit, there are about 3 laws that someone or another
has pointed to as "reasons" for the collapse. Every last one of them
was passed with low double digit nays in the House and high single
digit nays in the Senate... if there was even a recorded vote in the
Senate.
Also, if you look at the actual votes, you will note that..
although
it pains me deeply to admit this... Barney Franks was the only person
in a leadership position who voted against everyone of these bills
every chance he got. Pelosi, and Reid voted for the bill, even the
preliminary bills passed before the final conference. So Franks is the
only with a legitimate voice in opposition to my mind.

Ummm ... WHo paid big money into the re-election campaigns of thes
Congresscritters?

OK, 'nuf said.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
Jim Elbrecht wrote:



While both of them had rape and abortion in their answers- Akin's
comments were the height of ignorance, but Mourdock's were considered,
respectful and honest. If I was pro-life, I would have to agree
with Mourdock. I'm not-- but I can still respect him for the way he
feels. Listen to the whole answer to the question.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5n1KzTVXuA
33 seconds-

Actually, M's statement was almost word-for-word the outlook of the
Catholic church on the subject. I wondered why nobody brought that up
when he was being portrayed as out the mainstream.

Yup-- Even Jon Stewart screwed the pooch on that one, IMO. I guess
sometimes he's just a comedian trying to make a living.

I didn't see any Fox clips that focused on his long, well spoken intro
to the 'god's will' part of his statement. [I don't watch Fox-- but I
do look for clips on topics of interest and it was a puzzle to me why
no one was giving Mourdock a fair shake.]

Jim

On 11-09-2012 07:19, Jim Elbrecht wrote:
On Fri, 09 Nov 2012 01:24:51 -0500, Wes Groleau
wrote:

On 11-08-2012 12:54, gonjah wrote:
I don't buy into the Republican good, Democrat bad, stuff. I like to
look at the numbers.

I believe in voting for the best person for the job.

Unfortunately, that person is almost never on the ballot.

My ballots have a place to add a name at the very bottom.g

So do ours. Also a note "Write-ins will NOT be counted unless for a
declared write-in candidate."


--
Wes Groleau

Free speech has its limits
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.org/WWW?itemid=99

David Kaye wrote:
wrote


Unfortunately for the republicans, we have a lot of working poor and
unemployed voters.

The Republicans preach that anybody -- ANYBODY can become rich if
they only try hard enough. Ever try to sell Amway products? They
preach wealth all the time, but name me even ONE Amway salesperson
you personally know who has made a million dollars. Or even half a
million.
Bill Gates has long said that he became rich through luck of the
draw, being born into a wealthy family, having the benefit of the
good infrastructure of Seattle (good schools, etc), etc. This is why
he feels that the wealthy OWE it to society to give back all they
can. He recommends the rich give back at least 50% of their wealth
in charitable contributions to society. He and his dad wrote a book
about it a good 15 years ago...

Heh!

Back near the dawn of time, I saw a PBS interview by F. Lee Bailey. He was
interviewing Texas oilman H.L. Hunt. Hunt was a millionaire many times over
and an irascible curmudgeon. He took his lunch with him to work every day in
a paper bag. The same paper bag.

Anyway, Bailey asked Hunt a variation of the classic "Are you still beating
your wife?". The question was (paraphrasing): "Mr Hunt, when one thinks of
the captains of industry, the Fords, Carnegies, Rockefellers, one is
impressed by their contributions to the less fortunate. They've endowed
libraries, institutions of learning, museums. Why is it that you've never
seen fit to share your good fortune with society at large?"

Hunt looked at Bailey as if Bailey had eaten a bug. He replied:

"I use my wealth to give people something better than a pretty picture to
look at. I use it to give 'em a JOB."

On Fri, 09 Nov 2012 08:03:25 -0500, Jim Elbrecht
wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
Jim Elbrecht wrote:



While both of them had rape and abortion in their answers- Akin's
comments were the height of ignorance, but Mourdock's were considered,
respectful and honest. If I was pro-life, I would have to agree
with Mourdock. I'm not-- but I can still respect him for the way he
feels. Listen to the whole answer to the question.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5n1KzTVXuA
33 seconds-

Actually, M's statement was almost word-for-word the outlook of the
Catholic church on the subject. I wondered why nobody brought that up
when he was being portrayed as out the mainstream.

Yup-- Even Jon Stewart screwed the pooch on that one, IMO. I guess
sometimes he's just a comedian trying to make a living.

I didn't see any Fox clips that focused on his long, well spoken intro
to the 'god's will' part of his statement. [I don't watch Fox-- but I
do look for clips on topics of interest and it was a puzzle to me why
no one was giving Mourdock a fair shake.]


Get your brains working.
You guys just gave him a fair shake.
He was speaking for the Pope, and would represent the Pope.
What's so hard to understand?
Women voters understood that right off the bat, and so did any man
with sense and daughters.
They don't want the Pope voting by proxy in the U.S. Senate.
Personally, I don't want any daughter of mine forced by a Papist
government to bear the spawn of a rapist. And I don't want anybody I
care for exorcised by a Catholic priest either.
Same goes for the fundamentalists, who would bring rattlesnake kissing
to the floor of the Senate.
That's all very distasteful to me. In fact, it's fooking crazy.
I do not understand your confusion about this matter.

Vic Smith wrote:

On Fri, 09 Nov 2012 08:03:25 -0500, Jim Elbrecht
wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
Jim Elbrecht wrote:



While both of them had rape and abortion in their answers- Akin's
comments were the height of ignorance, but Mourdock's were considered,
respectful and honest. If I was pro-life, I would have to agree
with Mourdock. I'm not-- but I can still respect him for the way he
feels. Listen to the whole answer to the question.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5n1KzTVXuA
33 seconds-

Actually, M's statement was almost word-for-word the outlook of the
Catholic church on the subject. I wondered why nobody brought that up
when he was being portrayed as out the mainstream.

Yup-- Even Jon Stewart screwed the pooch on that one, IMO. I guess
sometimes he's just a comedian trying to make a living.

I didn't see any Fox clips that focused on his long, well spoken intro
to the 'god's will' part of his statement. [I don't watch Fox-- but I
do look for clips on topics of interest and it was a puzzle to me why
no one was giving Mourdock a fair shake.]


Get your brains working.
You guys just gave him a fair shake.

Here's a funny-- when I went to confirm that Mourdock wasn't
Catholic I found out that Newt Gingrich tried to put Mourdock's
comments in context on a show I watch every week, but [the usually
fair, IMO] George Stephanopolous shut him down. I must have missed
the exchange because when Newt starts talking crazy I FastForward
through his rants-- Must have FF'd too far that time.

He was speaking for the Pope, and would represent the Pope.
What's so hard to understand?

Why a fundamentalist Christian would 'represent the pope'.g

They don't want the Pope voting by proxy in the U.S. Senate.

And yet, almost 1/2 the Senate is Catholic.

-snip-
That's all very distasteful to me. In fact, it's fooking crazy.
I do not understand your confusion about this matter.


I think I *do* understand your lack of confusion.

Jim

On Fri, 09 Nov 2012 10:40:40 -0500, Jim Elbrecht
wrote:



He was speaking for the Pope, and would represent the Pope.
What's so hard to understand?

Why a fundamentalist Christian would 'represent the pope'.g


The Pope, Billy Graham, and the Taliban all agree on this issue.
They all agree about compromise too. They don't.
Substitute whichever one you want.

They don't want the Pope voting by proxy in the U.S. Senate.

And yet, almost 1/2 the Senate is Catholic.

Name one who said having a rapist's baby is "God's will," and will
vote according to "God's will."
Just because you go to church and worship doesn't mean you're stupid.
I'm still trying to figure out what Mourdoch meant when he concluded a
woman must bear the spawn of a rapist, "I just struggled with it
myself for a long time but I came to realize....."
So when he "came to realize" was he feeling his inner uterus and
vagina? His fallopian tubes? His clitoris? The joy of a rapist's
genetic material growing into an adorable rapist's baby in his tummy
while his body was transforming and he was puking every morning?
As I man I don't get that realization. Just can't understand.
Maybe I'm not arrogant and all-knowing enough, like Mourdoch.
Maybe I don't have enough feminine in me.
That's why I let women call those shots.
And they did in Mourdoch's' case.
He was honest about his "feelings," and those feelings were rejected.
He can live with that and the Senate will live without him.
He's Taliban rubbish as far as I'm concerned.

In article ,
Jim Elbrecht wrote:

On Thu, 08 Nov 2012 19:43:25 -0800, Smitty Two
wrote:



(As far as I'm concerned, Mormons aren't any more stark raving mad than
Catholics, Lutherans or Muslims.)

I'd add atheists, just to be fair.

Jim

You mean, just to be irrational. Atheism is not a religion.

On Fri, 09 Nov 2012 10:02:06 -0800, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article ,
Jim Elbrecht wrote:

On Thu, 08 Nov 2012 19:43:25 -0800, Smitty Two
wrote:



(As far as I'm concerned, Mormons aren't any more stark raving mad than
Catholics, Lutherans or Muslims.)

I'd add atheists, just to be fair.

Jim

You mean, just to be irrational. Atheism is not a religion.

Many of the atheists I know are just as fervent in their *dis* belief
as are those who believe. And with the same amount of proof.

Jim

In article
,
Smitty Two wrote:

In article ,
Jim Elbrecht wrote:

On Thu, 08 Nov 2012 19:43:25 -0800, Smitty Two
wrote:



(As far as I'm concerned, Mormons aren't any more stark raving mad than
Catholics, Lutherans or Muslims.)

I'd add atheists, just to be fair.

Jim

You mean, just to be irrational. Atheism is not a religion.

I'd disagree. This is one definition of a religion "the body of persons
adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices" which certainly
pertains to atheists who are a body of persons (doesn't say have to be
church and there are organizations such as the Atheist Club of Topeka),
they certainly have a set of beliefs, they have definite practices that
they follow.
And since atheists can no more disprove the existence of a god than
the Christians and others can prove the existence of a god, it certainly
is every bit as much of a faith as the Christians, etc.

Sorta reminds me of Douglas Adam's quote:
He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized
there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there
wasn't an afterlife.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

In article ,
Kurt Ullman wrote:

I'd disagree. This is one definition of a religion "the body of persons
adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices" which certainly
pertains to atheists who are a body of persons (doesn't say have to be
church and there are organizations such as the Atheist Club of Topeka),
they certainly have a set of beliefs, they have definite practices that
they follow.

Do a little more research. Atheists do not have a common set of beliefs,
or ideologies, or philosophies, or practices, or anything else that
makes them a "group." They have only *one* commonality, and that is a
declination to drink the kool-aid, regardless of flavor.

The question: "what do atheists believe?" cannot be answered, precisely
because atheism is not a religion.

-over and out-

In article
,
Smitty Two wrote:

In article ,
Kurt Ullman wrote:

I'd disagree. This is one definition of a religion "the body of persons
adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices" which certainly
pertains to atheists who are a body of persons (doesn't say have to be
church and there are organizations such as the Atheist Club of Topeka),
they certainly have a set of beliefs, they have definite practices that
they follow.

Do a little more research. Atheists do not have a common set of beliefs,
or ideologies, or philosophies, or practices, or anything else that
makes them a "group." They have only *one* commonality, and that is a
declination to drink the kool-aid, regardless of flavor.

Nice of you to make my point. My set theory from HS indicates that there
can be one thing in a set. The other thing that they all believe in is
that their religion isn't one.


The question: "what do atheists believe?" cannot be answered, precisely
because atheism is not a religion.


By every definition I have found, including many by atheist groups
themselves note they believe there is no god, or other supreme being.
It has always been fascinating to me that atheists get so upset when you
suggest their outlook is every bit as much faith as any
god-acknowledging person. They turn such a lovely shade of red.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe