Bitcoin Forum

Very interesting interview:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_800855&feature=iv&src_vid=Kw7MvYFsQNY&v=38nEispWqG8

Wonder if she realizes Romney would have been just as much of a scam?

Did you watch it? She seemed to now agree with Alex Jones that the whole D/R scheme is a scam. She and her husband had never heard of Ron Paul running for president. So unless this is just a made up character to begin with, apparently his talking points were effective at generating interest in this issue.

Neat.  America's waking up.

Haven't had a chance to, yet. Was gonna watch it with the woman, but she's feeding the babies.

Romney would be getting rid of ObamaCare, and not destroying the 2nd Amendment.

Plus the Professional Left would find their lost spine, as they are wont to do when a Republican is President, and start opposing the Great War on Terror once again.

Good for ObamaPhone Lady.  Preach it sister!

In America as in the UK, and as in many countries around the world (especially Europe).

2 sides of the same coin. Or imagine a banker happily walking along with Obama in his right pocket and Mitney in his left pocket. The same as in the UK Conservatives in one pocket, Labour in the other.

It's so obvious nowadays, but whats worse, is how obvious it is and yet how the general people KNOW but just hang their heads. The system has managed to twist the people in such a way that they've developed these strange 'greed/self interest' traits, just like very small imitations of the banks, in that most just look after themselves, they see the crap happening, but as long as its not in their own 'back yard' then they're happy to ignore it, and this is exactly how they want it.. lets be fair, it has bloody worked well

It's always been that way... most people just look after themselves, and as long as their lives are fairly decent, they don't make waves. Bread and Circuses. Nowadays it's Beer and Football, but the concept is the same.

its the Bilderberger jews who rip you off

...and instituting RomneyCare, and destroying the 1st amendment. Just because they fuck you on different aspects, doesn't make them any better.

But yes, at least the Left would go back to protesting the war(s).

RomneyCare might be what the communist people in the Marxist State of Mass. want, but Romney never advocated imposing it on the other 49 States.

When that happened, we called it ObamaCare.   >:(

Not sure what you mean about Mitt destroying the 1st Amendment.  Can't see him being any worse than Obama on NDAA, if that's what you're talking about.

Rand Paul endorsed Romney instead of Obama for some good reasons.

Ron Paul is friendly with and partially endorsed Romney instead of Obama for some good reasons.

Because capitalism, proven leadership in private sector, etc.  Plus he's an real American, not a CIA puppet from Kenya or Hawaii.

Obama has never been viable in the free market.  100% public sector welfare/affirmative action baby.

I suppose supporters on either end of the spectrum will find any way they can to rationalize the bank-approved candidates for presidency.

Romney's a Mormon. He's even held positions in the cult's various churches. If that's not a red flag, all is explained.

The lesser of two evils: Still fuckin' evil.

Noting that the Left's dormant Anti-War/Pro-Civil Liberties wing would reactivate under a Republican President is stating a well-known fact, not "rationalizing."

My grandfather converted to LDS late in his life.

His church ("cult" in your bigoted vocabulary) cared for him until the end and vastly improved the quality of his final years.

I met his LDS buddies at the funeral, which they were instrumental in organizing, and they came across as genuinely nice, decent people (unlike, for example, you).

Do you hate all religions equally, or save your venom for congregations with fewer members than the largest organizations?

If you resent Mormons because they have doctrinal differences with your own particular denomination, all is explained.   ;)

So in other words, someone of whom you share relation belonged to X-religion, and thus, you're biased.  And no, I hate no religion; you're putting words in my mouth, and I'd appreciate you not do that.  I do, however, understand religion, and I understand what it is used for, and how politicians use it to their advantage.  Mormonism just happens to have a soft spot in my heart for having the silliest conception of all common religion (and say what you will, 14,000,000+ mormons is not a small religion.  In comparison?  Sure.  Compared to the "religion" of me?  Well!--how could 14 million Mormons be wrong to my 1-member religion?)

And what makes you so sure I have a "particular denomination"?  I take offence to that.  Unlike those with "denominations", I prefer to ask my own questions and get my own answers.  This is what religion doesn't teach you.  But that's the tragedy of religion; if one were trained to think, as opposed to sponge, religion would cease to be.  There is no religion that will train you to be an individual.  There is only the religion, and what you can do for the religion (under the guise of helping yourself, too--but if you could help yourself, what good is religion?)  Having been raised under such circumstances, I simply hope you'll either know what I'm saying, or trust I know what I'm talking about.

For example:  Bill is a Christian.  Jane isn't; Jane isn't anything.  So what is Jane?  I guess she's just Jane.  And Bill?  Well, Bill's a Christian.

Now: because Bill is a Christian, we expect Bill to do Christian-like things.  Because that's what Bill subscribed to, and it shouldn't be over our heads to expect him to understand the word of Christ yadda yadda.  Jane?  Who fuckin knows, I guess you'll have to get to know her.  Since Jane's an individual, and has no such title (and by that, I mean, to those non-religious; any Theist will name anyone who is not a Theist an Atheist, as Theists love their titles and -isms) we can safely assume that she either knows better, or has yet to be converted.  To the religious, it must always be the latter--else, the religious individual is having second thoughts, which is, of course, preferable, signifying someone who stopped simply listening and spent some good, quality time thinking (and if it goes well, it always ends up with a discarding of said religion, if not all religion.)  To the non-religious, it can very well be both: and that's the difference between the two.

I really don't care if Romney was Mormon, Catholic, Jew, Islamic, or Hindu.  Because he subscribes to another man's logic (and again, I refer to the conception of Mormonism as the real killer here,) this says enough about his ability to lead.

And before you ask: no, I don't like Obama, either.  They're both completely terrible.  Say; did you know there's more than two candidates in every election?  And yet nobody can name the others (except for R. Paul.)  Why do you believe this is?  And why do both candidates always subscribe to the stupidity of the left, or the stupidity of the right?  And why is it--if we're to put the above to practice, about religion and being apart of something greater--always, always, always, those who are left, or those who are right, are religious?

I was sharing a positive personal experience as a response to your bigoted attitude towards Mormons.

Remember when you called them a "cult?"   ::)

IDC what religion anyone belongs to, I care about the actions of those professing that faith.

That's not "bias."  It's a (provisional) conclusion based on observed facts.

Don't retreat into the general when we're discussing the specific.

I'm a Ron Paul guy too.  And I've already pointed out that Carol and Ron are buddies with Ann and Mitt.

I also reminded us that Rand Paul endorsed Romney, for several good reasons, instead of Obama.

You Ultra-Purist types are committing the basic error of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Romney's far from perfect but he's obviously better than Obama!  At least he's had a real job, with executive experience, and believes in American capitalism.

Yet you see his family's choice of religion ("cult" in your words) as an "obvious red flag."  Isn't that just a little bit petty?   ;D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Meadows_massacre

Yes, I already know all about that.  It happened over 150 years ago and has nothing to do with the kind family-oriented people who brightened grandpa's last days and took care of his final arrangements.

Also has nothing to do with Ron and Carol's friendship with the Romneys, or Rand Paul's endorsement of Mitt.

All religions have regrettable incidents in their past.  What matters is how they've grown since they happened, and deal with the real, modern world.

Keep grasping at tenuous straws, and you'll begin to strongly resemble the fundamentalist nutjobs you get so worked up into a hateful froth over.   ;)

PS Mormons are great preppers.  They open their food canning centers to the rest of the public too.  How nice of them!

I was gonna post a really long, thoughtful response, but then I realized:


There is nothing I can ever say that will bring you to reason; it's almost like you're teasing me.  No offense, but you're in the wrong convo; you're not here to debate, you're here to fold your arms and huff.  Great; you love Mormons, therefor Mitt Romney looks like Jesus.  Anything else?

Indeed. I've yet to see any evidence that the Mormons - or almost any religion - have done so, however.
Well, Maybe the Wiccans. They're pretty cool. And no mass-murders in their - albeit short - history, either. Their religious tenets are actually quite similar to my political ones.

It's hardly grasping at tenuous straws to point out a mass murder that was a) perpetrated by a group of people professing a certain belief system, and b) incited by that same belief system.
They are. Have you asked one why, though? The answer should be enlightening.

I didn't say I love Mormons, but I can see how having a reasonable opinion of them based on some limited positive interaction would offend you enough to say dumb things like


I just don't see the point in calling them a "cult" or holding the better (*cough* less worse *cough*) of two presidential candidates' choice of religion against them, to the exclusion of far more pertinent issues.

That's the kind of bigoted fundamentalist crap which made me dislike religious people intensely when I was younger.

Then I grew up.  You, OTOH, still go around saying asinine, inflammatory nonsense like "Mormons are a cult" and Romney's religion is a "red flag."

What's your excuse?  Did your Baptist preacher man tell you Mormons worship Lucifer or something?   :D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism_of_small_differences

Have you looked for any such evidence, or do your jaundiced eyes only see 150+ year old ancient history, to the exclusion of less sensational, but far more relevant and positive, recent data?

The old pagans practiced human sacrifice.  I can see why Christianity, with its forgiveness this and golden rule that, looked like a pleasant alternative to those bloody rituals.

You can't compare old time Mormons, hounded to the ends of the earth by intolerance strongly resembling your own, to comfortable modern Mormons.

They don't (officially) practice polygamy, for a start.

As I said, the only contact I've had with LDS was in the course of my grandpa's funeral.  Why they are great preppers didn't come up.

But the fact that you need to dissect their motivations for a behavior with which you agree amply demonstrates your propensity for Purity Policing and letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

IMO.  Have a good one mrykul!   :)

On the contrary, I am quite tolerant of all religions. So long as they keep on their patch, and don't try to drag me into their business - a practice Mormons are unfortunately quite fond of, and which Wiccans, who have no ties to the old pagan religions, thankfully abstain from. If I had to choose between having a Wiccan as a neighbor and having a Mormon, I'd pick the Wiccan, hands down. I know members of both religions personally. As I said before, the Wiccans are pretty cool.

Ahh, but the reasons are the most important thing about what someone does. Motivation is key. As I said, I'm quite tolerant of Mormons, but, unfortunately they are not very tolerant of me. This naturally colors my perception of the religion as a whole, and placing supreme executive power in the hands of one of it's adherents in particular.

Yea the whole region thing is interesting. Personally I assume anyone who tells me they know what happens after a person dies is trying to scam me somehow. But it offsests the power of the state as long as the two do not get intermingled.

I also like how they seem to be the only ones wanting to teach questioning of scientific dogma in schools. Most likely it is motivated by wanting to replace it with some different dogma but as long as both agendas are balanced it actually would be better. Of course the best thing would be to refrain from indoctrinating children at all and instead teach them critical thinking, but apparently that is too much to ask.

My sentiments exactly.  Two wrongs don't make a right.  So all arguments loop back into statism, it seems; would a lack of state lead to better schools and thus end religion, replacing it with cold science?  I wonder.

Nuff said.

https://i.imgur.com/z1C1w7Y.gif

Has anyone else interviewed her?

she sounds very intellectual

Yea the problem is that isn't a good way to judge people. Money can get you trained to sound smart and be aware that certain issues exist. There are plenty of false positives and negatives using that to judge someones intelligence though.

she should have been PM of Britain instead of the bitch Maggie Thatcher

Oh. My. Goodness. A religion teaching self-reliance and preparedness‽ It boggles the mind!

What's next—Boy Scouts of America teaching self-reliance and preparedness? OH NO! THEY ALREADY DO! What is this world coming to‽‽

Actually, they tend to be a little paranoid. They kinda figure we might turn on 'em again at any moment. Siege mentality. I'm fine with the prepping, just not the paranoia that inspires it.