Posted on 02/24/2007 8:54:37 AM PST by sevenbak
You're really twisting words.
What I find funny about atheists is you still define yourself by God.
I have no hatred for mormons - so you are simply incorrect or perhaps willfully misstating my opinion.
So have fun with your dishonest word games -
Well first of all you are obviously ashamed of your own religion or you would proclaim it. You define yourself by your hatred of Mormonism. How sad is that?
I read your writings on theological terminology and the only logical conclusion that I can come to is that the Catholics are the ones to define the terms since they are the ones that wrote the New Testament. You implied that all the cults that broke off improperly define the terms. And since you obviously hate cults, I assumed that you weren't a member of one. I am sorry that I thought that you thought rationally.
Well first of all you are obviously ashamed of your own religion or you would proclaim it. You define yourself by your hatred of Mormonism. How sad is that.
Rejection of a teaching does not equal hatred - and I'm a little tired of being accused of that.
Rejecting a candidate based on incompatibility on fundamental beliefs does not equal hatred or bigotry - and you should be ashamed of yourself for putting yourself on such a low level as to distort what I've said.
You're not as smart as you think you are, and you won't bully me any further. If you really want to know what church I attend, look through the posting history - I think I've mentioned it in the last week or so.
Did you notice that I said "for your purposes, I define myself as an atheist". I define myself as someone who seeks the truth.
I have no hatred for mormons - so you are simply incorrect or perhaps willfully misstating my opinion.
Then why do you prominently post anti Mormon references on your home page and write a spiel about cults, specifically Mormonism. If that isn't hatred I don't know what is.
So have fun with your dishonest word games -
You defined yourself by hatred on your homepage. Look up projection :)
No but posting references to an anti Mormon site that is filled with lies and hatred is. You are trying to separate yourself from the hatred and lies that you are promoting. Sorry that doesn't fly.
Rejecting a candidate based on incompatibility on fundamental beliefs does not equal hatred or bigotry - and you should be ashamed of yourself for putting yourself on such a low level as to distort what I've said.
I never said it did. What you posted on your homepage equals hatred and bigotry. You are the one that is trying to distort what is being said. Heck you wrote the treatise on it didn't you?
You're not as smart as you think you are, and you won't bully me any further. If you really want to know what church I attend, look through the posting history - I think I've mentioned it in the last week or so.
Why are you so ashamed of answering a simple question?
I didn't write it, I posted it - with the reference to where it came from.
There is not hatred and bigotry on my profile page - you can say it is until you're blue in the face, but that doesn't make it so.
I have no reason to tell you my church -
So you don't agree with it? I apologize if that is the case.
There is not hatred and bigotry on my profile page - you can say it is until you're blue in the face, but that doesn't make it so.
So the reference to a hate filled anti Mormon site and all the yada yada about cults isn't hate and bigotry? What exactly is your definition of hate and bigotry?
I have no reason to tell you my church -
I know you don't and I would be ashamed of it if I was you too :)
since you can only twist words and make assumptions (or outright lie) about my thoughts or beliefs, I'm done posting with you.
LOL You started by twisting words and making assumptions (and referenced lies) about the Mormon Church. How does if feel when those same tactics are used against you? Have you learned anything?
Yeah, we keep our convictions -- until he shows up with federal marshals to enforce his instead.
That might be your definition and experience joker, but sorry its never been mine!
Don't bother pinging me ever again.
gee I guess truth hurts!
He has a weak record on social issues and is a gun-grabber. As governor he presided over a gay circus in state government without taking a strongly pro-family stand. He let the gay cabal walk all over social moderates and conservatives. If you want to impress us, put up something showing Mitt Romney lifting a finger to support family values in the face of the homosexual assault on marriage and family.
The handle is lentulusgracchus.
And it might just be your experience if Hillary gets in. Remember, you can't beat something with nothing, and RiNO's always set off people's "nothing" detectors.
That would work for abortion since it would return us to status quo ante on that issue. But homosexual "marriage" is a federal issue.
I can give you a link to a gay online magazine article, if you wish, or a quote in extenso from the article, in which Evan Wolfson in 2001, when he was still lead counsel for Lambda Legal and had just lost the James Dale/Boy Scouts of America case, analyzed the "single-sex marriage" issue as a federal case waiting to go to what he viewed as a complaisant (i.e. friendly) Supreme Court. Two years later, SCOTUS did in fact overturn state anti-sodomy laws and their own precedent of only 18 years' standing, the opinion in which was written by then-Chief Justice Burger himself (why?).
In 2001, SCOTUS wouldn't take a "marriage" case because no State in the Union had a homosexual "marriage" law, which Wolfson and SCOTUS saw as a prerequisite to any homosexual lawsuit alleging that some State had infringed their civil rights and liberties by refusing to recognize their homosexual "marriage" sanctioned by another State. Article IV of the Constitution lays out that the States must give "full faith and credit" to the enactments of other States, so that if I am bankrupt, married, born etc. in one State, my documents so noticing in one State must needs be accepted at face value in all the other States. This is how the homosexuals plan to force "gay marriage" on all 50 States simultaneously, against the will of the People, by decree of the Supreme Court. State laws and constitutions and federal statutes simply will not withstand this constitutional attack, once made. The Constitution has to be amended to clarify what the institution of marriage really is, and Rudy Giuliani (and I think Mitt Romney) is on the wrong side of this issue. So, if you believe statements by Mary Matalin made in the course of her campaign advance work for then-Gov. Bush among the Log Cabin Republicans in 2000, was George W. Bush himself until public opinion brought him to repudiate his former opinion (and Matalin's statements).
I do like the fact that he could realign the electoral college map, creating new debates on issues, instead of the battle lines that have been drawn since Reagan.
Those battle lines have existed since the end of the 1880's, and they enclose what is known as "the Finklestein Box", which is the conservative part of America. For a really good illustration of it, pull up any colorized map of the county-by-county election returns for 2000 or 2004 and examine the pattern closely.
The Giuliani candidacy, if he gets the nomination, may just let the Democrat into the Finklestein Box as much as it nets him votes outside that box. It would be a real toss-up. If the opposing candidate is Hillary, supposedly (I keep hearing from the treacherous liars in the MSM) Rudy would beat her -- but what if it's Obama? All bets are off.
There is no upside for conservatives in such an election. Even if they lose with Obama or Hillary, liberals and "progressives" (Stalinists) would get the satisfaction of seeing all their issues from the 1930's to the 1990's validated by a nominally Republican President and proclaimed as the law, custom, belief, and unshakably set-in-concrete and carved-in-granite establishment of the land for all eternity. Elect Rudy, and the American idea is dead.
Romney, I just haven't seen enough to know.
Look at DBrow's post of his comments to Stephanopoulos on gun control and the NRA, above. That's what he put it up for. (Thanks, DBrow.)
Gingrich probably reflects my views better than anyone else, but can he get elected?
No, the press did too much damage with their personal-destruction campaign in 1995. The divorce story finished him -- all women hate him now. The story may not have been true, but it's immaterial now, women have all heard it and they all believe it, and they hate hate hate him because the Dems made him (uncontested and uncontradicted AFAIK) the bad guy in a morality tale of heartlessness toward a woman dying of cancer, which is just As the World Turns ground zero.
Here's a Must Read:
Embryonic Stem Cell Research Financier Joins Pro-Gay Fundraiser To Host Mitt Romney San Diego Event
While I usually just lurk, I cannot resist the logic, or rather that lack of it in your posts.
Just so you know where I am coming from, I am a Mormon, I have defende3d my church on this very forum form casual slanderers such as your self, and I have fought tooth and nail for candidates (usually Mitt) to be evaluated by their merits, not by their religion.) there that said,. You post a link than say you didn’t write and or don’t necessarily agree with what it said. Then why post it? Your logic is severely twisted. To remove the Religions twist from this, how well would Hillary fare saying to us conservatives “Just because I quote Marx all the time does not mean I agree with him.” She would be laughed out of the forum.
First, you note on your home page here that you have been banned once (I would assume that means only once, but you have already belittled others here for assuming facts you refuse to provide, so I won’t) Did you learn anything? Apparently not since you then go on to denigrate the Mod(s) who banned you for not being able to read (hint, if they banned you once, they could do it again.)
Then your page is filled with negativity about the church I attend. This is not in itself unusual, what is unusual is that you then reject all attempts to find out what religion you believe. You decry all cults (all organized religions can be called cults) so a poster assumes you are an atheist. You jump all over them for assuming. They ask for your religion of preference, you tell them to go read all your garbage for the last several weeks (which takes longer to write than the name of your church I am sure). The only purpose of in hiding your religion is that you are afraid you will face the same kind of challenges you are so wont do give here to Mormonism, which makes you look cowardly.
Last when you are called on it, you pout like a child and say “well, I’m done posting to you” (sound of feet stomping off into the distance…)
Honestly, I could not care less what your religion is, but do your Mommy and Daddy know you are using their computer? At the risk of assuming something, the last time I heard a conversation this juvenile was when my 12 year old had her birthday party and I had to chauffer her friends home.
Really, this was a funny thread; please keep doing what you are doing, with enemies like you who needs friends?
ROTFLOL!
If that post is representative of you 'defending' your religion - you're going to need to work on that a bit more.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.