DiscussMormonism.com

Sweet!

Nothing better than seeing Romney take it in the magic underpants, except seeing Jon Stewart kick him even more on Larry King!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11s0tsgpVWg

Notice Hinckley's best friend(King) did nothing to defend Mitt? He just LOL'd!

Nice!

Mitt has served us all well! He exposed Mormonism to hundreds of millions and made a complete ass of himself!

The icing on the cake is that he and a bunch of idiot Mormons PAID FOR IT!!!!

Just curious, are there any mo'idiots on this board who paid for my happiness by donating money to the flippster fool?

I found what he said at the end interesting.


From Romney's 'faith in America' speech..

'There is no religion without freedom and no freedom without religion' or words to that effect

King asks Stewart what that means..

to which he replies

Who the *ell knows, but it sure ain't true..

I agree with Stewart on that one...
Looks like King did too..

What Mr Romney actually said was:

Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.

See the full text of his speech at:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/de ... mittromney

The ideas expressed in the first sentence of this quote do seem rather odd to anyone aware of world history, and of the culture of countries outside the United States of America.

Several major religions seem to have existed for lengthy periods, and indeed grown and flourished, with very little by way of freedom (political or intellectual) being granted to the people who lived in the regions dominated by the religion in question. Surely I do not need to give examples?

Further, liberal democracies of various kinds (which appear to be quite effective organisations in allowing their citizens a wide range of effective freedoms) exist successfully in a number of countries where religious belief plays no effective political role, either because it is expressly excluded from the sphere of government (as in France) or because its role has become negligible in fact though formally present (as in Britain).

Mr Romney's second point thus appears to be simply false. Religion can and does manage very well without freedom. I suppose there might be a way out for him by resorting to what has been called the 'no true Scotsman' trick (Google it if you don't know about this fallacy of equivocation), but I doubt if he really meant what he said that way.

As for the first point, freedom does not require religion, even if under free political conditions one will no doubt find that religious belief and practice is manifested by some members of a society, simply because they are free to choose to do so. In the present century, a society in which religious belief and practice were completely absent would probably turn out to be one in which there was a considerable amount of effective social and political repression. But the same would go for the absence of heavy metal rock, or sexual intercourse between the unmarried. And no-one (certainly not Mr Romney) would on that basis say that "Freedom requires sexual intercourse between the unmarried". So I think that, in the sense that he seems to have intended it, Mr Romney's first point is false too.

Thanks Chap,

I don't think Romney will be well-remembered for that particular quote.
I wonder what possessed him to say it?

He must have had advisors outside of LDSism as well as from within it on his
speech. It was an important, pivotal speech and it got pretty much, a world-wide
coverage.

You'd have thought that he would have ensured that he came across well to all
peoples, including secularists and atheists...

Or perhaps he thought he didn't have a chance in *ell of being voted for by them?

So wasn't out to please them in the first place...

I'm a theist I believe in God, but I don't agree with his sentiments in the least.
I wonder how many people are out there who would actually agree with him?

Miss Taken

I don't think Romney will be well-remembered for that particular quote.
I wonder what possessed him to say it?

I suspect that in this instance at least, Mr Romney has fallen victim to the temptation (common amongst campaigning politicians of all types) to privilege style over substance. His writers were not trying to enunciate propositions that they expected to be called on to defend through evidence and logical argument. They just wanted their man to be up there saying approving things about religion and about freedom, and suggesting that the two were somehow both important to him.

To that extent, he can serve as a counter-example to BCspace's contention elsewhere that a style over substance preference is typically associated with political positions on the left.

Chap wrote:Miss Taken

I don't think Romney will be well-remembered for that particular quote.
I wonder what possessed him to say it?

I suspect that in this instance at least, Mr Romney has fallen victim to the temptation (common amongst campaigning politicians of all types) to privilege style over substance. His writers were not trying to enunciate propositions that they expected to be called on to defend through evidence and logical argument. They just wanted their man to be up there saying approving things about religion and about freedom, and suggesting that the two were somehow both important to him.

To that extent, he can serve as a counter-example to BCspace's contention elsewhere that a style over substance preference is typically associated with political positions on the left.

Just say pandering to the evangelicals and be done with it.

Mercury wrote:

Chap wrote:Miss Taken

I don't think Romney will be well-remembered for that particular quote.
I wonder what possessed him to say it?

I suspect that in this instance at least, Mr Romney has fallen victim to the temptation (common amongst campaigning politicians of all types) to privilege style over substance. His writers were not trying to enunciate propositions that they expected to be called on to defend through evidence and logical argument. They just wanted their man to be up there saying approving things about religion and about freedom, and suggesting that the two were somehow both important to him.

To that extent, he can serve as a counter-example to BCspace's contention elsewhere that a style over substance preference is typically associated with political positions on the left.

Just say pandering to the evangelicals and be done with it.

QFT

Some Schmo wrote:

Mercury wrote:

Chap wrote:Miss Taken

I don't think Romney will be well-remembered for that particular quote.
I wonder what possessed him to say it?

I suspect that in this instance at least, Mr Romney has fallen victim to the temptation (common amongst campaigning politicians of all types) to privilege style over substance. His writers were not trying to enunciate propositions that they expected to be called on to defend through evidence and logical argument. They just wanted their man to be up there saying approving things about religion and about freedom, and suggesting that the two were somehow both important to him.

To that extent, he can serve as a counter-example to BCspace's contention elsewhere that a style over substance preference is typically associated with political positions on the left.

Just say pandering to the evangelicals and be done with it.

QFT

QFT? I found this on Wikipedia:

QFT", internet slang usually meaning "quoted for truth". This term applies on forums and posting boards where users can edit their posts, and describes a re-posting of another user's statement in order to counteract subsequent changes. Since the repost is not made by the original author, it can not be edited by him and will always preserve an unaltered copy of his initial contribution. Thus the QFT holds the poster to his original statement. It is also used - in the form of the slightly-altered "quoted from truth" - to express agreement with a previous poster's statement and validate its veracity. Other variations include "quoted for truthiness," "quoted for truthery," and "quite damned true" (used to indicate complete agreement with the previous post in toto). QFT can also mean "quit damned trolling" or "quit damned typing".

Which did you mean?

Chap wrote:

Some Schmo wrote:

Mercury wrote:

Chap wrote:Miss Taken

I don't think Romney will be well-remembered for that particular quote.
I wonder what possessed him to say it?

I suspect that in this instance at least, Mr Romney has fallen victim to the temptation (common amongst campaigning politicians of all types) to privilege style over substance. His writers were not trying to enunciate propositions that they expected to be called on to defend through evidence and logical argument. They just wanted their man to be up there saying approving things about religion and about freedom, and suggesting that the two were somehow both important to him.

To that extent, he can serve as a counter-example to BCspace's contention elsewhere that a style over substance preference is typically associated with political positions on the left.

Just say pandering to the evangelicals and be done with it.

QFT

QFT? I found this on Wikipedia:

QFT", internet slang usually meaning "quoted for truth". This term applies on forums and posting boards where users can edit their posts, and describes a re-posting of another user's statement in order to counteract subsequent changes. Since the repost is not made by the original author, it can not be edited by him and will always preserve an unaltered copy of his initial contribution. Thus the QFT holds the poster to his original statement. It is also used - in the form of the slightly-altered "quoted from truth" - to express agreement with a previous poster's statement and validate its veracity. Other variations include "quoted for truthiness," "quoted for truthery," and "quite damned true" (used to indicate complete agreement with the previous post in toto). QFT can also mean "quit damned trolling" or "quit damned typing".

Which did you mean?

I bolded the way in which I was using it.

God bless Jon Stewart.

Is there somebody Will can report him to for his transparent attempt to undermine Mormonism?