GOP Debate Last Night?

ksinc

Connoisseur
I try not to have reservations about this...but I do wonder...what counsequence would it have...how would it look to the rest of the world if the man in charge of our country wasnt allowed to drink coffee/booze (not that he didnt, but wasnt allowed to)...and that he wears "magic underwear" or whatever that's called into the shower etc...I dunno...I wonder sometimes...

...and yeah...I'm not crazy about the fact that he's from Mass. either...

I think the whole thing of saying the guy wears "magic underwear" is pretty ridiculously anti-mormon. They don't think it's magic, they think it's sacred and symbolic. They aren't hurting anybody and there are worse things than be sexually unperverted.

From some of your previous posts on women and promiscuity you could probably benefit from showing your underwear a little less! ;)
 

whomewhat

Senior Member
"Why do we make heroes out of that family of thugs anyway?"

I am not trying to make heroes out of the Kennedy family, rather, making a simple statement that JFK was a pretty good President, having lowered taxes and handling the Cuban missile crisis quite well. I would not vote for Ted Kennedy to be Mayor of my town much less President. If you think someone is a thug and undeserving of being President, that is one thing, but to disqualify someone from being President because of their religion, well, that is simply anti-American.

I have a serious problem with Romney and that is his previous Pro-Choice stance, which is completely contrary to what he claims to believe personally. I know all about the "what I believe personally as opposed to what I believe the role of government is" argument, but I simply reject it.

Romney has not explained this change of heart to my satisfaction, yet, and I am one of those "magic underwear" Mormons that was so shamefully attacked in an earlier post.

I grew up Catholic my entire life, went to 12 years of Catholic schools, to include a Jesuit-run all boys college preparatory. I was an altar boy most of my youth and even became the sacristan, or head altar boy (a paid position). Part of my job was to get up every morning at 4:30AM, go to the church, open it, light the candles, prepare for the first mass of the morning, and set up the clothing for the priest saying mass, which included far more than under garments. I have never belittled the sacred nature of what I did in my youth, even if I changed faiths as an adult, and have always had the utmost respect for and gratitude toward the Jesuit priests and Notre Dame nuns who taught me.

Some things are funny and some things are never appropriate and that was one of them, by the way. Many thanks to Ksinc recognizing how inappropriate that remark was and setting the record straight. Nothing magic about our "sacred garments," rather, they carry symbolism to us that only those of us who wear them understand. I will not characterize them beyond that only to say that this particular subject should be off limits from this point forward and I will ask the moderator to insure that it is.
 
Last edited:

Wayfarer

Honors Member<br>P-Bomb
In regards to the "magic underwear"....does keeping kosher really make sense? Giving up items for Lent? Waiting until sundown to eat and drink during Ramadan? Nah. People do odd things to prove their connection to their religion and I cannot think of a religion that does not have a component of this.
 

BertieW

Super Member
In regards to the "magic underwear"....does keeping kosher really make sense? Giving up items for Lent? Waiting until sundown to eat and drink during Ramadan? Nah. People do odd things to prove their connection to their religion and I cannot think of a religion that does not have a component of this.

Right. Some practises may have had life-and-death purpose centuries ago (e.g. not eating pork, particularly if you couldn't keep it fresh), but it seems that many of our religious rituals are designed to create a community of faith that binds people together. I suppose that's always been the role of ritual and practise, although when some of them become more achronistic (e.g. we could eat pork now thanks to much wider refrigeration, but we choose not too), they seem that much stranger to us.

While living in Phoenix, I knew many Mormons who seemed like perfectly fine people. Some were friends and associates and even had a sense of perspective (even humour) about aspects of their faith. I am mostly concerned about /fanaticism/ not faith. I think too often fanaticism can blind people to other aspects of their faith--such as compassion--in an all-out pursuit of being "correct" and literal in their practises. I believe that kind of uncompromising thought can lead to people blowing themselves, and others, to bits.

Not my idea of how we should navigate the 21st century.
 

crazyquik

Super Member
Speaking of Romney, does anyone else feel he is getting what amounts to religious descrimination from the media? You all know I am godless but I have to tell you, IMO that guy is the target of a media pogrom.

He's a squeekly clean conservative white male, a perfect target for them. Hopefully the public will see through it.
 

JDC

Inactive user
While Giuliani's remark gets good airplay, both you and him apparently missed Ron Paul's real point. He did not say they only hated us after we attacked Iraq. He said that our actions with Iran since 1953 and Saudi Arabia for the past 40 years have fueled resentment that enables those that would attack us to fuel hatred of us. If you are going to call a man an idiot and criticize his statement you owe it to him to get it right.

IMHO, you should read "A Republic, Not An Empire".

To act like U.S. ME policy has been executed from some type of unreachable/impenetrable island empire is what is insane. Paul was advocating a long standing foreign policy perspective consistent with conservative ideals which is not to get entangled with foreign powers and interests outside of our own.

One only has to look at the history of the U.S. in Iran, then how we supported Saddam against Iran and the current situation we face for a relevant example. We're actually going to Iran now to ask for help in securing Iraq. Insanity at its core.
Stunning post. Bravo. If it wasn't for oil, I believe U.S. (and British) foreign policy in the Middle East would have actually promoted democracy, instead of installation of one brutal, "Western-friendly" puppet government after another. We hear a lot in our media about Saddam Hussein's palaces, and virtually nothing about palaces of Saudi "princes", Kuwait's "king" and other Middle East "emirates". Meanwhile the people in these countries live in absolute squalor.

Most Americans are content to watch Mr. Bush drone on about "They hate our freedoms." It's so much easier than dealing with reality.
 

ksinc

Connoisseur
Stunning post. Bravo. If it wasn't for oil, I believe U.S. (and British) foreign policy in the Middle East would have actually promoted democracy, instead of installation of one brutal, "Western-friendly" puppet government after another. We hear a lot in our media about Saddam Hussein's palaces, and virtually nothing about palaces of Saudi "princes", Kuwait's "king" and other Middle East "emirates". Meanwhile the people in these countries live in absolute squalor.

Most Americans are content to watch Mr. Bush drone on about "They hate our freedoms." It's so much easier than dealing with reality.

GO PAT GO! ;)
 

Concordia

Elite Member
Romney and Giuliani are going to have trouble in their own states. Both had worn out their welcome long before they decided to go national.
 

Valhson

Active Member with Corp. Privileges
The interesting things was everyone agreeing that torture was ok. Except for McCain.

WTH?

I agree. It makes me wonder where the like is crossed in the average cits head. At what point it is interrogation and where is it torture? I see that there are many different takes on it. Not cool.

As said the paki/american prisoner in another post said he was tortured physically by being given a pall with little pressure in it, a newsletter and scentless soap. I think we can all agree that isn't torture, but what about the actual interrogations....
 

ksinc

Connoisseur
Why is it more interesting or important to argue over semantics? I find that the least interesting and most offensive part of the debate(s).

Fight to win.
 

Valhson

Active Member with Corp. Privileges
I am not talking about the war I am talking about the individual psychological differences as to what is concidered torture.

The war is another matter and the fact that they are/are not enduring anything is outside of what I was saying.
 
Your email address will not be publicly visible. We will only use it to contact you to confirm your post.

IMPORTANT: BEFORE POSTING PLEASE CHECK THE DATE OF THE LAST POST OF THIS THREAD. IF IT'S VERY OLD, PLEASE CONSIDER REGISTERING FIRST, AND STARTING A NEW THREAD ABOUT THIS TOPIC.

Deals/Steals

Trad Store Exchange