DescentBB

Heh, that's like double jeopardy there . A rich, white guy who thinks he will be a God over his own planet. This should be good practice for him I guess.

flip wrote:I still can't figure out why Christians think Romney is a Christian. Mormons are a "christian" cult.

that's splitting hairs, since Christianity is itself an offshoot (or a "cult" as you put it) of Judaism.
so Mormonism is just a cult of a cult of a cult.
Yo Dawg i herd u like religion. So we put a Smith in your Jesus in your Abraham in your Yahweh in your Cannanite pantheon. So you can cult while you cult

flip wrote:...goddess mother...

you may find this interesting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asherah
"...many female figurines unearthed in ancient Israel, supporting the view that Asherah functioned as a goddess and consort of Yahweh and was worshiped as the Queen of Heaven."
man, i'd never even heard of this stuff back when i was a Christian, totes interesting!

flip wrote:I still can't figure out why Christians think Romney is a Christian. Mormons are a "christian" cult.

If you were to go to any Christian bookstore and look in the non-Christian cult section you will see numerous books on Mormonism that document Mormon beliefs as aberrant and un-Biblical. The Mormon Church is not considered a Christian church.

Jesus warned us about such groups when he said in Matthew 24:24 that in the last days many false christs and false prophets will arise and deceive many. Mormonism is exactly that, a manifestation of a false prophet: Joseph Smith, who taught all these things.

The Bible does not teach that God came from another planet, or that he has a goddess wife, or that we can become gods. In fact, the Bible clearly and definitely contradicts those teachings. But, the Mormon Church responds by saying that the Bible is not really trustworthy, that the true faith was lost, and that its leader, Joseph Smith, restored the so-called "true" Christian faith: god from another world, becoming gods, goddess mother, etc

flip wrote:Christian faith encourages people to include as many people as possible, Mormon's are separatists and elitists.

These 2 statements kinda contradict eachother no? First you're saying that Chrisitianity does not tolerate any of the things that Mormonism contains, then you say that Christianity is about including as many people as possible. Can't have it both ways unfortunately, it's either tolerant or it's not.
To put it another way: The message you're clearly getting from your apparently super-inclusive Christianity religion is that it should NOT include Mormonism. Sure doesn't sound inclusive to me at all.

Christianity is itself an offshoot (or a "cult" as you put it) of Judaism.

No, Judaism was the foundation, Christianity was the completion.

you may find this interesting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asherah
"...many female figurines unearthed in ancient Israel, supporting the view that Asherah functioned as a goddess and consort of Yahweh and was worshiped as the Queen of Heaven."
man, i'd never even heard of this stuff back when i was a Christian, totes interesting!

I don't know why. There is a complete record of idol worship all throughout the bible. Even as God was giving Moses the law.

I said nothing about tolerance. I said it was a perversion of Christianity.

roid wrote:These 2 statements kinda contradict eachother no? First you're saying that Chrisitianity does not tolerate any of the things that Mormonism contains, then you say that Christianity is about including as many people as possible. Can't have it both ways unfortunately, it's either tolerant or it's not.
To put it another way: The message you're clearly getting from your apparently super-inclusive Christianity religion is that it should NOT include Mormonism. Sure doesn't sound inclusive to me at all.

Well, there could be two forms of inclusion:

1. Inclusion of individuals. I.E. "We'd love for you to join us at church and accept our beliefs" and/or "All humans are in the same sinful state and in need of Christ's saving grace"

This is central to Christianity. I'm not exactly sure about Mormons....

2. Inclusion of ideology. I.E. "Never mind that you disagree with me on the meaning of life, it's all called religion, so it's close enough!"

This is not a part of Christianity. There's a certain line that must be drawn here... this doesn't mean that we should argue over every last detail, but there are a certain set of core beliefs (Mostly centered around the person and work of Christ)that aren't negotiable to be considered "Christian" and the teachings of the book of Mormon fall outside of those beliefs.

The biggest problem is that a lot of people (even Christians) mix/confuse the two.

Christianity was the completion.

a perversion of Christianity.

Oh yes, and those OTHER religions are horrible "separatists and elitists", not us

Flip*, these qualities are clearly central aspects of your religion. If only from just how you're talking... but, as a reminder here's some biblical justifications that people like you use.

Do not be unevenly yoked with unbelievers.
Be no part of the world.
Bad associations spoil useful habits.

....
Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites!
but i guess you'll never think of yourself as one of those haughty pharisees eh. Oh no, only OTHER haughty people are like those old pharasees, i'm as righteous as ★■◆●, nothin' wrong with me, my finger only ever points one way.
When other people do it it's separatist and elitist, but when i do it it's avoiding idolatry and cutting out my eye lest it make me stumble.
I'm allowed to shun Mormons but they're not allowed to shun me, nuh-uh.

*(edit: whoops, thx foil)

roid wrote:Foil...

??

(whoops, sorry foil, fixed it now)

flip wrote:

roid wrote:

you may find this interesting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asherah
"...many female figurines unearthed in ancient Israel, supporting the view that Asherah functioned as a goddess and consort of Yahweh and was worshiped as the Queen of Heaven."
man, i'd never even heard of this stuff back when i was a Christian, totes interesting!

I don't know why. There is a complete record of idol worship all throughout the bible. Even as God was giving Moses the law.

I said nothing about tolerance. I said it was a perversion of Christianity.

i guess i'd never really heard other Gods portrayed in a neutral or positive light before though. It was always Baal this, Molek that, rargh rargh rargh, evil evil evil. But this one was apparently at one time Yahweh's wife! To be honest the patriarchal totalitarianism of Abrahamic monotheism always did seem rather imbalanced to me, it's like there was something important that was missing.
Honestly, i take you as somewhat of a Christian Mystic, so i thought maybe you'd be more interested than most in this softening of the harsh YHWH or the HYWY image.
(hehe get it? Yahweh or the Highway. my religious jokes are the best jokes )

Yahweh was probably one of a whole pantheon of Gods, but the other gods were removed as the religion was used to codify and unify the people. It became more totalitarian and warlike to be honest, used to stir and motivate the people to dominate other nations in those horrid genocidal times when they purged their other Cannanite tribes (remember they were a Cannanite tribe themselves) from the land .
But the religion evolved, changed, as all religions do, and old beliefs were increasingly purged, textual canons shifted.

I realise this is sacrilegious to those who believe that their religion was born of a relatively recent divine revelation. I can't really see you guys taking this archaeology/comparative religion stuff as anything other than an affront, so i'm sorry.
To me, seeing this traced back, fills me with weird warm feelings. Like... if you go back, eventually all the totalitarianism falls away and you're just left with the simple inclusive and dynamic pantheons. They just like... love eachother man.
That ultimately our archaic forms of worship were inclusive and dynamic and chaotic, they had room for love, they had room for a lot of things.... it stirs something deep in my heart.
But anyway, like i said in the animal rights thread, it only stirs that in me coz that's what i'm about (ie: confirmation bias). I'm beginning to wonder if this is a major part of religious experience - the feeling that you are important, that who you personally are is a central aspect of the nature of the universe. That it's all kinda a justification, that who you are, is ok, by divine decree. We we all deep inside want to believe that, and will thus seek out a suitable religion & belief system which validates that pre-existing belief. I guess Douglas Adams was onto something.

roid wrote:

Christianity was the completion.

a perversion of Christianity.

Oh yes, and those OTHER religions are horrible "separatists and elitists", not us

ALL religions have those as a central aspect roid. Why do you think we have religious wars? Every religion thinks that they are God's favored people and that all those who aren't believers are evil infidel scum. Just more group-think.

A show about the Mormon Church I watched on TV last night gave me a little insight on Mitt Romney's persona and his religion. This Vanity Fair story gives a good take on it.

The Dark Side of Mitt

The involvement of Romney and The Mormon Church with an out-of-wedlock Mormon mother and her baby is quite telling, if anyone reads down the article that far. What a heart ol' Mitt has.

And I like this scathing rebuke of Mitt's conduct and shifting positions during his multitudinous campaigns by his father's longtime aide, Walter De Vries.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012 ... time-aide/

De Vries wrote:“While it seems that Mitt would say and do anything to close a deal – or an election, George Romney’s strength as a politician and public officeholder was his ability and determination to develop and hold consistent policy positions over his life.”

De Vries wrote:“George would never have been seen with the likes of Sheldon Adelson or Donald Trump.”

phew, i think i'm done editing my previous post finally.

tunnelcat wrote:

roid wrote:Oh yes, and those OTHER religions are horrible "separatists and elitists", not us

ALL religions have those as a central aspect roid. Why do you think we have religious wars? Every religion thinks that they are God's favored people and that all those who aren't believers are evil infidel scum. Just more group-think.

yeah i had that in the post originally, but after a few pre-submit rewrites it ended up getting cut to keep the focus narrow & personal.

Actually Roid, what separates Abraham :IE (Judaism, Islam and Christianity) apart from all other religions was their belief in ONE GOD. No others, just one.

flip wrote:Actually Roid, what separates Abraham :IE (Judaism, Islam and Christianity) apart from all other religions was their belief in ONE GOD. No others, just one.

Don't forget Zoroastrianism, Sabianism, Ravidassia, Bahá'í, Atenism, and Sikhism. All have one god.

Hey wait, it's getting crowded in here!


EDIT: Prediction: Romney doesn't recover from the spanking he received in debate 2 of 3.

flip wrote:Actually Roid, what separates Abraham :IE (Judaism, Islam and Christianity) apart from all other religions was their belief in ONE GOD. No others, just one.

uh. Yes incase it wasn't clear from my posting, i understand that modern Abrahamic religions are monotheistic.
But there are still mentions of other Gods in the Bible even, such as instructions to place Yahweh "before" other Gods.

What i've been talking about is the earlier religions from which proto-Judaism inevitably emerged, and then the retconning and redacting of the "official" written history since the change to strict monotheism (among other changes) happened (as tends to be the case). Traces remain in texts and archaeology, which ultimately fuel the speculation. It's probably Obama behind it all, oops i mean Satan, eh whatever same-same AMIRITE U GUYS?! hurrrr

The Torah is a mashup, and the mashing goes on & on & on.

Here's the thing Roid. I don't really need a book although I'm dang sure glad we got one. I can look around and tell this is no accident. I remember sitting on the bus, one row back from the wheel hump, left side in a seat by myself, and I said "I believe that too." I was 6. Now I'm 42 years old and believe it even more. Whether there is a God or not is no longer a question, diggin through and sorting out which one is the trick now. The real one is present.

Latest Gallup poll of likely voters Romney 51, Obama 45.

yet, RealClear still has Obama ahead in the Electoral College, despite putting Pennsylvania and Michigan, whose most accurate polls put Obama 6-8% up, even before last night's debate, and Iowa, despite a huge early turnout for Obama from all reputable sources. Those 3 states in the Obama column would put him at something like 352 EC votes, needing only 18 more to win.

very telling is the Intrade number, which has Romney back at a 35% chance of victory, after stalling at 42% last week.

callmeslick wrote:yet, RealClear still has Obama ahead in the Electoral College, despite putting Pennsylvania and Michigan, whose most accurate polls put Obama 6-8% up, even before last night's debate, and Iowa, despite a huge early turnout for Obama from all reputable sources. Those 3 states in the Obama column would put him at something like 352 EC votes, needing only 18 more to win.

very telling is the Intrade number, which has Romney back at a 35% chance of victory, after stalling at 42% last week.

Nice attempt at spin but Obama is losing ground, no matter how you want to look at it. The flow is with Romney and unless Obama pulls a rabbit out of his hat (something like turning loose special ops to bring back Benghazi scalps) Romney is the next president.

wanna bet?......oh, nevermind.

actually, Woody, Romney seemed to hit a high mark last week when RealClear's tracking had him up 1.4 or so, back to a .5 lead now, and let's face it, anything near those ranges on either side means the race comes down to the ground game. Most of my faith in Obama getting re-elected has centered all along on a vastly superior ground level campaign organization. I'll still stand by that, and if proven wrong, so be it. As I say, watch the Intrade(wagering) numbers. Obama is marching back up steadily since last week's end. He's never trailed in the betting, and was up by a 3-1 margin before that first debate stumblefest. Biden helped his cause and last night was good for him. You know, when the other side is blaming the moderator(s), the last two rounds went pretty well for the Dem side. Still, I was heartening to hear Mitt's tax plan. If he gets in and passes that mess, I am looking at completely tax free income for the rest of my retirement! w00t!

It continues to stagger me that the very people who would get absolutely demolished by Romney's tax plan are the same people who are in his camp.

callmeslick wrote:actually, Woody, Romney seemed to hit a high mark last week when RealClear's tracking had him up 1.4 or so, back to a .5 lead now, and let's face it, anything near those ranges on either side means the race comes down to the ground game. Most of my faith in Obama getting re-elected has centered all along on a vastly superior ground level campaign organization. I'll still stand by that, and if proven wrong, so be it. As I say, watch the Intrade(wagering) numbers. Obama is marching back up steadily since last week's end. He's never trailed in the betting, and was up by a 3-1 margin before that first debate stumblefest. Biden helped his cause and last night was good for him. You know, when the other side is blaming the moderator(s), the last two rounds went pretty well for the Dem side. Still, I was heartening to hear Mitt's tax plan. If he gets in and passes that mess, I am looking at completely tax free income for the rest of my retirement! w00t!

So now you are reduced to a bookie putting odds out? Here, let me repost this, give it to your bookie and then recalculate the odds:

"DENVER — A University of Colorado economic model that has correctly predicted the last eight presidential elections shows Mitt Romney emerging as the victor in 2012."

Top Gun wrote:It continues to stagger me that the very people who would get absolutely demolished by Romney's tax plan are the same people who are in his camp.

Mind giving a few more details? Why not vote for Romney as everyone is getting hosed under Obama. Also I found this to be rather interesting:

"Study: Black Americans Feel Less Empowered Under Obama Than They Once Did"

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washin ... y-once-did

Top Gun wrote:It continues to stagger me that the very people who would get absolutely demolished by Romney's tax plan are the same people who are in his camp.

I suppose time will tell (or maybe not). I personally buy the plan that I hear Romney putting down... I know there are lots of talking heads out there that are saying it won't work, based on their own personal assumptions, but who's to say that their assumptions are correct? Here's one thing that I'm sure of: If I end up paying more dollars to the government because I'm paying a lower rate on a lot bigger paycheck, I'm going to be happy.

Top Gun wrote:It continues to stagger me that the very people who would get absolutely demolished by Romney's tax plan are the same people who are in his camp.

first off it cannot be any worse than the Demolition of those people suffered the last 4 years.
second your "opinion" of his tax plan is just that. you really need to stop listening to the Obama and the Democrats Hyperbole.

snoopy wrote:I suppose time will tell (or maybe not). I personally buy the plan that I hear Romney putting down...

which is, what exactly? Now, I did point out, in another thread, how the cap gains tax cut will absolutely benefit thousands of good folks who live off their inheritances. I don't see how his plan does anything to:
1. address the deficit in the short term
2. create jobs that wouldn't be created under a normal(slow) recovery from this type of financial bubble crash.
3. lay the groundwork for a long-term reshape of the economy.
4. Change the trajectory of the 30 year widening of the gap between the rich and everyone else.
5. Grow the middle class a bit.

I know there are lots of talking heads out there that are saying it won't work, based on their own personal assumptions, but who's to say that their assumptions are correct? Here's one thing that I'm sure of: If I end up paying more dollars to the government because I'm paying a lower rate on a lot bigger paycheck, I'm going to be happy.

don't know if you have kids, grandkids or the like, but for those of us that do, the picture is bigger than just that. It's about the long term health of the US economy. You see, I know my daughter will have money, I know my grandkids will have money. That's because my family set that stuff into motion back in 1673 and we've been building on it ever since. But, I don't want my grandkids to live like rich folks in Mexico, with guards and barricades and stuff, because we let the nation turn into a nation of peasants, toiling for the few well-off folks. Also, what on earth would cause your paycheck to be 'a lot' bigger, that Romney would have any control over? Seriously, I get your supposition on taxes(and suppose you would be very disappointed with reality), but what, specifically, does Romney say that would make you imagine your paycheck would get 'a lot' bigger?

CUDA wrote:

Top Gun wrote:It continues to stagger me that the very people who would get absolutely demolished by Romney's tax plan are the same people who are in his camp.

first off it cannot be any worse than the Demolition of those people suffered the last 4 years.
second your "opinion" of his tax plan is just that. you really need to stop listening to the Obama and the Democrats Hyperbole.

spell out what Obama did(or didn't do) that 'demolished' any sector of the US populace?. I mean, he didn't do squat to cause the crash, didn't get us into two protracted wars, didn't create the reality that 26 million people had to use the Emergency room for free healthcare. Job losses continue after every bubble-type crash for years. What leads you to say Obama demolished anything?

Still, I was heartening to hear Mitt's tax plan. If he gets in and passes that mess, I am looking at completely tax free income for the rest of my retirement! w00t!

I'll start by saying I am against Mitt Romney and will not vote for him, but what exactly is wrong with this? It stands to benefit ALL investors and their retirements.

EDIT: And I do know that if Obamacare is ratified, there goes even more money right off the top of my check, meaning I have even less to invest.

flip wrote:

Still, I was heartening to hear Mitt's tax plan. If he gets in and passes that mess, I am looking at completely tax free income for the rest of my retirement! w00t!

I'll start by saying I am against Mitt Romney and will not vote for him, but what exactly is wrong with this? It stands to benefit ALL investors and their retirements.

EDIT: And I do know that if Obamacare is ratified, there goes even more money right off the top of my check, meaning I have even less to invest.

what is wrong is that it gives an unfair break to those who inherited their money. This isn't about retirement plans, it's about multimillion dollar family trusts.My bad for muddying that up with my comment.....my 'retirement' isn't fueled by some 401k, it's the direct result of being able to live off the family land trust and investment income. Further, lowering cap gains has NEVER, I repeat, NEVER led to increased investment. Didn't work for Bush, won't work for Romeny. Oh, and if there are more than 40 Dems in the Senate, you will not see the repeal of Obamacare unless the GOP puts a serious plan on the table to replace it. For the record, it is law, not subject to 'ratification'. Have you noticed additional money off your check, because it's been in effect for over a year and a half?

I actually think it's quite awesome to suggest zero, yes zero, cap gains on the first $bignum. A lot of us "working stiffs" are eventually going to have retirement investments, and being able to draw from them freely is a good thing.

Keep in mind one reason for treating cap gains differently from wages: with cap gains, you're putting your initial investment at risk. Even a "very conservative risk level" puts you in danger of losing a crapton of money if the economy happens to shift in a way you weren't expecting. Taxing cap gains means you're exposed to 100% of the downside but only about 85% of the upside.

Also, it's double taxation. The lucky fellow who inherited $10 million, his family paid taxes when they first earned that money (or the seed money that eventually became that money). His family made that money grow by putting it at risk; they could just as easily have lost it by investing in Enron or GM or some other failing company/industry. Even if all he does with it is keeps up with inflation, cap gains means he's being taxed on his "keeping up with inflation" amount. That's lame.

I tend to agree more with this assessment.

sorry, Flip, but it's bull★■◆●, pure and simple. First, retirement investment is handled completely separate. Most folks are going to annuitize their 401k or Roth IRA or receive a pension(the lucky few). None of that is cap gains, nor interest income. Secondly, the bit about 'that money was taxed' is made by folks who don't want you to think. What was the tax on Rockafeller's income, or DuPont family income, or Vanderbilt or even at the smaller level, my great-grandfather when he owned a bank? Essentially NOTHING, because the Income tax was minisule at best, and for most of the accumulataed old money in this country NONEXISTANT. Thus, my current income is dividend and interest off money that was made long ago, on which the Feds didn't make a dime in taxes. Some folks want you not to think about stuff like that and suggest that these tax breaks are for Mr and Mrs average when they retire, so they have more money to buy dog food after they pay for the healthcare costs that Paul Ryan's vouchers didn't cover, and the exhorbitant state taxes that were levied to pay for disaster relief, education, unemployment insurance, road and bridge upkeep and all the other things those guys think we don't really need.......

I'll admit I know very little about economics, at the moment anyways. Yes, Vanderbilt, Rockefeller.....ect. They definitely had unfair advantage and were ruthless bastards that turned everything to themselves. I mean just look at the foundations they created which are exempt from all taxes but still earns heaps of interest. That ship has sailed though. I'll take some time to ponder this.

This is a response from a friend on facebook. Makes sense.

Why should anybody have to pay taxes on inherited money when all that money was taxed to death all through the years. ENOUGH already! Why do you think so many second and third generation farmers have to auction off their land and equipment when their fathers die? To pay Estate Taxes! I say ZERO ESTATE TAXES for EVERYONE!

Flip,
a counter ponder for you. My family has been passing property and assets down for 12 generations. Never an auction. The answer to your friends question, sadly, is simple. Those people don't know what they are doing, regarding estate planning.

edit: I recently took my Grandkids to Virginia. They became the 13th generation to step foot on land we've owned since 1680. Still in the family. It was the original tobacco farm carved out of the marshy woods by the initial male in the line to come to Virginia.

Well, the point is, if there wasn't ESTATE TAX, they wouldn't have to. Especially seeing as most cannot carry that burden anyways. Like I said, I don't either.

Real clear now has Romney in the lead, 206 to Obama's 201. Still care to bet the farm comrade?

flip wrote:Well, the point is, if there wasn't ESTATE TAX, they wouldn't have to. Especially seeing as most cannot carry that burden anyways. Like I said, I don't either.

hell, most of the time, STATE estate taxes are more dangerous that the Feds. Sure, the Feds get a big chunk, but only after you have $3 million in real estate and the same in cash/securities protected. Further, any estate planning worth squat sets up trusts and insurance policies that protect the heirs from getting killed financially.

woodchip wrote:Real clear now has Romney in the lead, 206 to Obama's 201. Still care to bet the farm comrade?

not your comrade, but the bet is on.....I don't welsh on a bet, do you??

You want to see Capitalist megalomania in action, watch this series on the History Channel. It's pretty interesting. Sure, these robber barons made the country move forward into the industrial age, but the infighting, backstabbing, plotting and conniving, just to be the top dog caused horrible problems for a LOT of common working people. It's what men do when they play by their own rules and they're driven by power, greed and money. It's winner take all and it's what a guy like Romney represents.

http://www.history.com/shows/men-who-built-america

tunnelcat wrote:You want to see Capitalist megalomania in action, watch this series on the History Channel. It's pretty interesting. Sure, these robber barons made the country move forward into the industrial age, but the infighting, backstabbing, plotting and conniving, just to be the top dog caused horrible problems for a LOT of common working people. It's what men do when they play by their own rules and they're driven by power, greed and money. It's winner take all and it's what a guy like Romney represents.

http://www.history.com/shows/men-who-built-america

Yep, I think the same way of Romney. I don't agree with all of Obama's policies, but he is standing with the people in a quickly changing world. Since I only have 2 to choose from it will probably be him. Take for instance his refusal to cover his heart during the National Anthem. Why would a president seeking re-election do such a thing? It's counter-productive to your appearance yet he does it openly. I think he's trying to tell us something.

flip wrote:Yep, I think the same way of Romney. I don't agree with all of Obama's policies, but he is standing with the people in a quickly changing world. Since I only have 2 to choose from it will probably be him. Take for instance his refusal to cover his heart during the National Anthem. Why would a president seeking re-election do such a thing? It's counter-productive to your appearance yet he does it openly. I think he's trying to tell us something.

The photograph was taken on September 16, 2007, at Senator Tom Harkin’s annual steak fry festivities in Iowa. And Title 36 of the us code specifically states that the hand must be held over the heat at any patriotic and national observances. A steak fry festival does not qualify as either a patriotic or a national observance.

Obama had his "Solyndra problem" and now Romney has his own "Green Energy in-law problem".

http://news.yahoo.com/does-mitt-romney- ... ories.html

I guess Romney's business sense didn't rub off on the other side of the family tree. Or maybe it did and that's how bad his business sense really is to use in practice.

There are more instances than that one. They must all be considered together.

EDIT: I also don't think he's necessarily being unpatriotic. I just dunno yet, but he's tryingto convey something, otherwise, he would do his best to fit in, not stand out.