Leading GOP Candidate a Cult Member!

[JoeB131]

Nice try Buckwheat.....

But I only mentioned him once in the context of being a state owned oil runner where he can really shove it to us the same way he did when he was in charge of FM/FM.

I'll say it one last time.

They shut down 750,000 BPD of refining capacity in Penn. Did you get that ? 750,000 BPD. The other companies are excited because it will firm up prices on the east coast.

But, the out fall is that a bunch of Union Bro's are headed to the unemployment line. Do you know how many jobs a refinery supports ? I am betting you have no idea.

Hey, maybe they can go to Ca and find work for Solyndra...ooops...guess not. Wendy's it is.

You can thank your regulating federal government for the shutdowns too. Environtment regulations and uncertainty caused these companies to shelve assets rather than invest in the equipment necessary to sour up.

And this in a country where we can only refine about half of what we use anyway.....

Weird point... I know.

Not one mention of sex.

Yup, usual bizarre MOrmon Ramblings...

Guy, the GOP has talked out of both sides of its mouth on this issue for years. They could have increased capacity and didn't. The oil companies don't really want to and why should they? They are making plenty of money now.

"The problem with Capitalism is Captialists. They're too damned Greedy." _ Herbert Hoover

 

[JakeStarkey]

Anybody alive in Texas in 1960, particularly in Houston, knows just how stupid you sound, JoeB. Nobody takes you seriously as you spout such nonsense.

JFK carried Texas. So obviously, no, there wasn't that much anti-Catholicism there..

Ignorance, thy name, obviously, is JRK. Study the campaigning season in Texas, study JFK's Houston speech on religion and why he had to make it, and read the outright asshole viciousness of the anti-Catholic rhetoric, which sounds much like yours.

America has been here before, and so has your hatred. And, as before, it will be overcome.

 

[JoeB131]

Anybody alive in Texas in 1960, particularly in Houston, knows just how stupid you sound, JoeB. Nobody takes you seriously as you spout such nonsense.

JFK carried Texas. So obviously, no, there wasn't that much anti-Catholicism there..

Ignorance, thy name, obviously, is JRK. Study the campaigning season in Texas, study JFK's Houston speech on religion and why he had to make it, and read the outright asshole viciousness of the anti-Catholic rhetoric, which sounds much like yours.

America has been here before, and so has your hatred. And, as before, it will be overcome.

Not really, guy. Mormonism will still be a weird cult.

In fact, Romney's nomination will probably increase anti-Mormonism, because people will find out how batshit crazy their beliefs are. (Unlike Catholic beliefs, which are just daft.)

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yah, really. His nomination will force the LDS church to really tone much down, particularly the anti-feminism in the leadership. Most informed folks about LDS'ism still don't understand the major schism coming in twenty years will be about females and the priesthood. The women will win that one hands down.

 

[Listening]

Guy, the GOP has talked out of both sides of its mouth on this issue for years. They could have increased capacity and didn't. The oil companies don't really want to and why should they? They are making plenty of money now.

"The problem with Capitalism is Captialists. They're too damned Greedy." _ Herbert Hoover

Gee........

They could have increased capacity...but didn't.

They are making money which they want to do.

Now, lets see....

If they want to make money by selling refined products, you'd think they would keep refining (making) them.

But they are shutting down refineries, you know...those awful smelly places that make.....guess what.....refined products.

Shutting down moneymakers ?

They must be stupid.

Did you miss the part about not being able to refiner but about 50% of what we use.

What am I missing here.

 

[IndependntLogic]

We talked with our only LibDem friends here (Henderson is VERY ConservaRepub compared to Vegas) last night. They LOVE all the division on the GOP.
They're confident that Obama would do better than Perry (I agree and given that choice, I would vote Obama).
They're also concerned that Romney could beat him (Again, I agree and told them I would vote Romney over Perry).
The GOP won't let anyone else get the nom.
So the LibDems get big wins either way.
With Romney, you've got all the backwoods gomers, fundmentalist Christians and RomneyCare as problems with the GOP base.
With Perry, you get the immigration hawks, deficit & spending hawks, big government hawks as problems with the base, and the Sheer Stupidity Factor as a problem with Independents, Moderates and Reagan Democrats needed to win the Electoral College.
I hope Romney gets the nod. I'd really like to vote for someone other than Obama next year...

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

We talked with our only LibDem friends here (Henderson is VERY ConservaRepub compared to Vegas) last night. They LOVE all the division on the GOP.
They're confident that Obama would do better than Perry (I agree and given that choice, I would vote Obama).
They're also concerned that Romney could beat him (Again, I agree and told them I would vote Romney over Perry).
The GOP won't let anyone else get the nom.
So the LibDems get big wins either way.
With Romney, you've got all the backwoods gomers, fundmentalist Christians and RomneyCare as problems with the GOP base.
With Perry, you get the immigration hawks, deficit & spending hawks, big government hawks as problems with the base, and the Sheer Stupidity Factor as a problem with Independents, Moderates and Reagan Democrats needed to win the Electoral College.
I hope Romney gets the nod. I'd really like to vote for someone other than Obama next year...

I'm still pretty uncertain about Romney, I always would rather hear issues over how charismatic and polished he may appear, although given the choice I'd vote for him over Obama. Charisma just can't replace experience and leadership ability, we as a nation shouldn't fall into that same trap twice in a row. I've grown rather interested in getting a closer look at Herman Cain, if he would win the GOP primary that would deflate the Left's argument of those voting against Obama being racist. In fact I find it quite interesting that liberals don't know how to handle a black man being conservative, as if they all should blindly follow the Democratic party without taking the time to "think" of how an opposing candidate might tackle the issues.

 

[JoeB131]

Yah, really. His nomination will force the LDS church to really tone much down, particularly the anti-feminism in the leadership. Most informed folks about LDS'ism still don't understand the major schism coming in twenty years will be about females and the priesthood. The women will win that one hands down.

Somehow, I kind of doubt that. Any woman with a backbone gets the hell out of Mormonism.

Or a brain for a matter.

Of course, if they really had brains, they'd stop believing in sky pixies altogether.

 

[Listening]

Yah, really. His nomination will force the LDS church to really tone much down, particularly the anti-feminism in the leadership. Most informed folks about LDS'ism still don't understand the major schism coming in twenty years will be about females and the priesthood. The women will win that one hands down.

They can form their own church...in fact, I think they already have.

But somehow, I don't see the Temple Square based church dealing with issue in any way shape or form.

The whole ERA debate caused a few women to drop out.....the rest just keep on going.

In today's world, it would seem that anyone who is telling young women to NOT allow young men paw them or somehow convince them to have sex with them is seen as being something that has a good influence.

Never mind Joe's weird obsession with the 14 year olds of 180 years ago (and not that I know what he's talking about.....and don't care).

 

[JoeB131]

They can form their own church...in fact, I think they already have.

But somehow, I don't see the Temple Square based church dealing with issue in any way shape or form.

The whole ERA debate caused a few women to drop out.....the rest just keep on going.

In today's world, it would seem that anyone who is telling young women to NOT allow young men paw them or somehow convince them to have sex with them is seen as being something that has a good influence.

Never mind Joe's weird obsession with the 14 year olds of 180 years ago (and not that I know what he's talking about.....and don't care).

You mean you are profoundly ignorant of the fact that Joseph Smith married and had sex with girls that young? Really? Or Brigham Young, with his 65 wives. Do they actually censor your history when you grow up?

(Actually, if I had Mormonism's history, I would.)

I always find it amusing that fundie churches like the LDS think that they are somehow doing women a favor by suppressing them. It's the same kind of mentality that makes Muslims dress their women in Burkas and whip them for talking to a man in public.

Women should be able to decide if they want to be pawed or not.

I think this is a major reason to reject Romney. Obama's already has a huge edge over him with women and once people start learning the nuttiness of Mormonism on gender issues, such as a woman can only get into Heaven if she's bonded to a man, they're going to be even angrier.

 

[Listening]

I think this is a major reason to reject Romney. Obama's already has a huge edge over him with women and once people start learning the nuttiness of Mormonism on gender issues, such as a woman can only get into Heaven if she's bonded to a man, they're going to be even angrier.

Yeah, they really will.

In a church where marriage and fidelity is stressed (although not always practiced), I am sure the women of today will find a lot to complain about. Especially given that when couples divorce, it is often the women and kids who wind up below the poverty line.

And if the marriage does fail, one of the accountabilities of the church is that men honor their obligations to pay alimony and child support.

Where men can be dragged before a disciplinary church court for neglecting to care for their families or abusing them. Where women can find support where thier husbands do turn south.

In a church were young girls are taught to get as much education after high school as they can and parents are encouraged to support getting the education.

It's a crime.

 

[JoeB131]

I think this is a major reason to reject Romney. Obama's already has a huge edge over him with women and once people start learning the nuttiness of Mormonism on gender issues, such as a woman can only get into Heaven if she's bonded to a man, they're going to be even angrier.

Yeah, they really will.

In a church where marriage and fidelity is stressed (although not always practiced), I am sure the women of today will find a lot to complain about. Especially given that when couples divorce, it is often the women and kids who wind up below the poverty line.

And if the marriage does fail, one of the accountabilities of the church is that men honor their obligations to pay alimony and child support.

Where men can be dragged before a disciplinary church court for neglecting to care for their families or abusing them. Where women can find support where thier husbands do turn south.

In a church were young girls are taught to get as much education after high school as they can and parents are encouraged to support getting the education.

It's a crime.

Wow, those attitudes are so... 1950's. They imply a woman is only complete when she has a man in her life.

News flash. Outside of Utah, women have discovered they are not just the life support system for a uterus. I know. it's crazy, man. But they like have careers and everything. My last boss was a woman. And even more shocking (to people like you), she was a lesbian. Wow. Imagine that! Moved up to be a VP of another company. She'll probably be a CEO by the time she's 50.

All without a man in her life or any interest in men.

 

[Ame®icano]

It's interesting to see that being Mormon IS a problem if you are on the right.

If you're left, then it's OK. Nobody complains about Harry Reid.

Same story with blacks.

 

[The T]

It's interesting to see that being Mormon IS a problem if you are on the right.

If you're left, then it's OK. Nobody complains about Harry Reid.

Same story with blacks.

Beware of the ONE WAY Street signs when in Liberal Kooksville...(They mean nothing)...

 

[Unkotare]

It's interesting to see that being Mormon IS a problem if you are on the right..

That is not the case.

 

[Ame®icano]

It's interesting to see that being Mormon IS a problem if you are on the right..

That is not the case.

OK then, what is the case?

 

[The T]

It's interesting to see that being Mormon IS a problem if you are on the right..

That is not the case.

Can you cite where there is a religious litmus test when selecting a POTUS?

 

[Unkotare]

It's interesting to see that being Mormon IS a problem if you are on the right..

That is not the case.

OK then, what is the case?

The case is that for the most part nobody on either side much cares. Bigoted extremists like the OCD asswipe here who does nothing but repeat the same post about how he hates Mormons all day everyday are not representative of the larger population.

And in any case: Poll: Democrats more likely to oppose a Mormon candidate in 2012 - Justin Ho - POLITICO.com

 

[Unkotare]

It's interesting to see that being Mormon IS a problem if you are on the right..

That is not the case.

Can you cite where there is a religious litmus test when selecting a POTUS?

I can cite where such a test is specifically prohibited.

 

[The T]

That is not the case.

Can you cite where there is a religious litmus test when selecting a POTUS?

I can cite where such a test is specifically prohibited.

*