Thread: Would you fuck Mitt Romney?

I won't

No, but I would like to bang his 9 wives.

Nah, I wouldn't either.

And while we're at it, I wouldn't piss on him If he were on fire!

why the hatred for Romney. I don't want him as president and don't think he has a shot either at the primaries or the general, but why the hatred?

Na, I don't hate him. Don't really like him, though.

Speaking of hatred, when I saw your name, I thought you were coming out with both barrels ablazin..

Well, he is a Mormon, and I have a policy against sleeping with the insane.

I wouldn't fuck him again. I wasn't impressed the first time.

Originally Posted by IronAddict

Na, I don't hate him. Don't really like him, though.

Speaking of hatred, when I saw your name, I thought you were coming out with both barrels ablazin..

all mormons running to each others defense? nah, the guy is a public political figure, he gets judged the same way everyone else does

Originally Posted by MDR

Well, he is a Mormon, and I have a policy against sleeping with the insane.

well considering all women are crazy that must mean you are gay. to each there own. if thats what you want more power to you

Originally Posted by bio-chem

well considering all women are crazy that must mean you are gay. to each there own. if thats what you want more power to you

I think I hit a Mormon soft spot. All women are crazy? Must be a Mormon thing. Come to think of it, you would have to be crazy if you are a woman and Mormon. Are you a woman? Or just crazy?

Originally Posted by MDR

I think I hit a Mormon soft spot. All women are crazy? Must be a Mormon thing. Come to think of it, you would have to be crazy if you are a woman and Mormon. Are you a woman? Or just crazy?

you didn't hit a soft spot at all. i recognize there is little point in getting offended by someone behind a computer i will never see, or meet, and i only interact with if i choose to. if making fun of things you don't understand makes you feel better about yourself then you're pretty normal. especially here on the internet

Originally Posted by bio-chem

all mormons running to each others defense? nah, the guy is a public political figure, he gets judged the same way everyone else does

Just castigating the man a lil bit. He's a polital (oxymoron) and wants to lead this country, where ?... I can only surmise, the same way everybody else does. Down the toilet.

So, I can only say what I feel, lord knows my vote don't mean shit!

He's running to be president. That makes him a fair target. Alright. Let's even this up. Would you fuck Obama?

Romney needs to stop shoe polishing his hair.

Originally Posted by bio-chem

you didn't hit a soft spot at all. i recognize there is little point in getting offended by someone behind a computer i will never see, or meet, and i only interact with if i choose to. if making fun of things you don't understand makes you feel better about yourself then you're pretty normal. especially here on the internet

I understand the Mormon "religion" as well as you do. I just think you'd have to be crazy to believe in that nonsense. I don't believe in any religion, but I just think Mormons are a special brand of crazy.

Well, all I really need to know is Joseph Smith, claimed by revelation that the garden of eden was in western missouri.

Well, I guess anything's possible.

Burning bushing, pregnant virgins, invisible motherships hovering in orbit, thunder gods, magical golden plates, reincarnation ect ect ect.


It is all equally absurd. I don't think Mormons are any crazier than the other religious tards. My beef with the morons is that they are organized and dangerously efficient.

Originally Posted by MDR

Well, he is a Mormon, and I have a policy against sleeping with the insane.

Hello! Would you like to change religions? I have a free book written by Jesus!

Originally Posted by MDR

I just think you'd have to be crazy to believe in that nonsense. I don't believe in any religion, but I just think Mormons are a special brand of crazy.

no doubt...and calling it nonsense is a vast understatement and vert kind. it is fascinating though to see how easily people accept some of these belief systems when it is so obvious what they are, total BS.

humans are very interesting creatures in general but in many ways very self-destructive

Originally Posted by KelJu

It is all equally absurd. I don't think Mormons are any crazier than the other religious tards. My beef with the morons is that they are organized and dangerously efficient.

I am not Mormon, nor will ever be. But in all honesty, compared t the other religions of the world, who have the Mormons really bothered? Outside of knocking on your door to talk to you? Mormon missionaries are much easier to deal with than Jehovah Witnesses. Tell a Moron to go away they do. The JV keeps pushing to try to get in your house and bring you the truth.

Originally Posted by dogsoldier

I am not Mormon, nor will ever be. But in all honesty, compared t the other religions of the world, who have the Mormons really bothered? Outside of knocking on your door to talk to you? Mormon missionaries are much easier to deal with than Jehovah Witnesses. Tell a Moron to go away they do. The JV keeps pushing to try to get in your house and bring you the truth.

Really? How about ritualistic child abuse and objectification of women? How can you possibly deny knowledge of the fact that the Mormon church was built on a foundation of Polygamy and abuse? Not to mention...


A Utah Massacre and Mormon Memory

New York Times/May 24, 2003
By Sally Denton


Santa Fe, N.M. -- As families tramp all over the country this summer, visiting historic sites, there's one spot - Mountain Meadows in southwestern Utah - that won't be on many itineraries.
Mountain Meadows, a two-hour drive from one of the state's popular tourist destinations, Zion National Park, is the site of what the historian Geoffrey Ward has called "the most hideous example of the human cost exacted by religious fanaticism in American history until 9/11." And while it might not be a major tourist destination, for a century and a half the massacre at Mountain Meadows has been the focus of passionate debate among Mormons and the people of Utah. It is a debate that cuts to the core of the basic tenets of Mormonism. This, the darkest stain on the history of the religion, is a bitter reality and challenging predicament for a modern Mormon Church struggling to shed its extremist history.
On Sept. 11, 1857, in a meadow in southwestern Utah, a militia of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or Mormons, attacked a wagon train of Arkansas families bound for California. After a five-day siege, the militia persuaded the families to surrender under a flag of truce and a pledge of safe passage. Then, in the worst butchery of white pioneers by other white pioneers in the entire colonization of America, approximately 140 men, women and children were slaughtered. Only 17 children under the age of 8 - the age of innocence in the Mormon faith - were spared.
After the massacre, the church first claimed that local Paiute Indians were responsible, but as evidence of Mormon involvement mounted, it placed the sole blame for the killings on John D. Lee, a militia member and a Mormon zealot who was also the adopted son of the prophet Brigham Young. After nearly two decades, as part of a deal for statehood, Lee was executed by a firing squad in 1877. The church has been reluctant to assume responsibility - labelling Lee a renegade - but several historians, including some who are Mormon, believe that church leaders, though never prosecuted, ordered the massacre.
Now, 146 years later, Lee's descendants and the victims' relatives have been pressing the Mormon Church for an apology. The move for some official church acknowledgment began in the late 1980's, when a group of Lee descendants, including a former United States secretary of the interior, Stewart Udall, began working to clear their ancestor's name. In 1990, descendants of victims and perpetrators began urging the Mormon Church to accept responsibility for the massacre and to rebuild a crumbling landmark established at the site by United States Army troops in 1859.
The current church president, Gordon B. Hinckley - himself a prophet who says he receives divine revelations - took a personal interest in the episode, and in 1998 he agreed to restore the landmark where at least some of the bodies were buried. But even that concession turned controversial when, in August 1999, a church contractor's backhoe accidentally unearthed the bones of 29 victims. After a debate between Utah state officials and church leaders - what has been called Utah's "unique church-state tango" - about state laws requiring unearthed bones to be forensically examined for cause of death, the church had the remains quickly reburied without any extensive examination that might have drawn new attention to the brutality of the murders.
A month later, on Sept. 10, 1999, when descendants of the perpetrators and the victims gathered to dedicate a church-financed monument in what they hoped would be a "healing" service, both sides were disappointed by Mr. Hinckley's remarks. He continued to hedge on the issue of church responsibility, even adding a legal disclaimer many found offensive. "That which we have done here must never be construed as an acknowledgment of the part of the church of any complicity in the occurrences of that fateful day," he said. This was thought by many to be an effort to avoid wrongful-death lawsuits. But the church's reluctance to apologize is more complicated.
At a time when religions around the world are acknowledging and atoning for past sins, the massacre has left the Mormon Church in a quandary. Roman Catholics have apologized for their silence during the Holocaust, United Methodists for their massacre of American Indians during the Civil War, Southern Baptists for their support of slavery, and Lutherans for Martin Luther's anti-Jewish remarks. But unlike the leaders of other religions, who are believed to be guided by the hand of God, Mormon prophets are considered extensions of him.
To acknowledge complicity on the part of church leaders runs the risk of calling into question Brigham Young's divinity and the Mormon belief that they are God's chosen people. "If good Mormons committed the massacre," wrote a Mormon writer, Levi Peterson, "if prayerful leaders ordered it, if apostles and a prophet knew about it and later sacrificed John D. Lee, then the sainthood of even the modern church seems tainted." Believing they were doing God's work in ridding the world of "infidels," evangelical Mormon zealots committed one of the greatest civilian atrocities on American soil. Without a sustained attempt at accountability and atonement, the church will not escape the hovering shadow of that horrible crime.

I wouldn't care to either. I'd rather have Herman Cain.

I am so freakin dumb Ms. Sassy, I've not even a clue as to who the heck that is.

In most events the answer would probably be NO! Unless, I see a pretty boy, straight with not a crooked means about him. With GOP, it is less then likely


final answer: NODDA!

Originally Posted by Nightowl

I am so freakin dumb Ms. Sassy, I've not even a clue as to who the heck that is.

!

wow lol

I sure hope your pretty to make up for it

Originally Posted by bio-chem

well considering all women are crazy that must mean you are gay. to each there own. if thats what you want more power to you

bio-chem needs to come out of the closet.

Okay, do you want to discuss the wholesale slaughter of Mormons in Illinois? How they were driven out of Pennsylvania and Ohio? Of how Mexico sent an army into the Arizona territory in 1912 to and destroyed Mormon settlements along the border on the orders of the Mexican Catholic Church? One of the reasons Mormons adopted polygamy because so many Mormon men were killed and they had women and children without a provider. Some hung on to that attitude, most didn't. Only about 1% of all Mormons practice polygamy. Bet you didn't know there are Christian and Jewish sects that practice polygamy and child marriages, also. Mormons have been persecuted all through the 1800's and into modern times. I am not condoning evil they did. But to pick them out is bigotry. EVERY religion has blood on their hands.

And for the record, I am not a Mormon, never been, never will. Just keeping the record straight.

Originally Posted by MDR

Really? How about ritualistic child abuse and objectification of women? How can you possibly deny knowledge of the fact that the Mormon church was built on a foundation of Polygamy and abuse? Not to mention...


A Utah Massacre and Mormon Memory

New York Times/May 24, 2003
By Sally Denton


Santa Fe, N.M. -- As families tramp all over the country this summer, visiting historic sites, there's one spot - Mountain Meadows in southwestern Utah - that won't be on many itineraries.
Mountain Meadows, a two-hour drive from one of the state's popular tourist destinations, Zion National Park, is the site of what the historian Geoffrey Ward has called "the most hideous example of the human cost exacted by religious fanaticism in American history until 9/11." And while it might not be a major tourist destination, for a century and a half the massacre at Mountain Meadows has been the focus of passionate debate among Mormons and the people of Utah. It is a debate that cuts to the core of the basic tenets of Mormonism. This, the darkest stain on the history of the religion, is a bitter reality and challenging predicament for a modern Mormon Church struggling to shed its extremist history.
On Sept. 11, 1857, in a meadow in southwestern Utah, a militia of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or Mormons, attacked a wagon train of Arkansas families bound for California. After a five-day siege, the militia persuaded the families to surrender under a flag of truce and a pledge of safe passage. Then, in the worst butchery of white pioneers by other white pioneers in the entire colonization of America, approximately 140 men, women and children were slaughtered. Only 17 children under the age of 8 - the age of innocence in the Mormon faith - were spared.
After the massacre, the church first claimed that local Paiute Indians were responsible, but as evidence of Mormon involvement mounted, it placed the sole blame for the killings on John D. Lee, a militia member and a Mormon zealot who was also the adopted son of the prophet Brigham Young. After nearly two decades, as part of a deal for statehood, Lee was executed by a firing squad in 1877. The church has been reluctant to assume responsibility - labelling Lee a renegade - but several historians, including some who are Mormon, believe that church leaders, though never prosecuted, ordered the massacre.
Now, 146 years later, Lee's descendants and the victims' relatives have been pressing the Mormon Church for an apology. The move for some official church acknowledgment began in the late 1980's, when a group of Lee descendants, including a former United States secretary of the interior, Stewart Udall, began working to clear their ancestor's name. In 1990, descendants of victims and perpetrators began urging the Mormon Church to accept responsibility for the massacre and to rebuild a crumbling landmark established at the site by United States Army troops in 1859.
The current church president, Gordon B. Hinckley - himself a prophet who says he receives divine revelations - took a personal interest in the episode, and in 1998 he agreed to restore the landmark where at least some of the bodies were buried. But even that concession turned controversial when, in August 1999, a church contractor's backhoe accidentally unearthed the bones of 29 victims. After a debate between Utah state officials and church leaders - what has been called Utah's "unique church-state tango" - about state laws requiring unearthed bones to be forensically examined for cause of death, the church had the remains quickly reburied without any extensive examination that might have drawn new attention to the brutality of the murders.
A month later, on Sept. 10, 1999, when descendants of the perpetrators and the victims gathered to dedicate a church-financed monument in what they hoped would be a "healing" service, both sides were disappointed by Mr. Hinckley's remarks. He continued to hedge on the issue of church responsibility, even adding a legal disclaimer many found offensive. "That which we have done here must never be construed as an acknowledgment of the part of the church of any complicity in the occurrences of that fateful day," he said. This was thought by many to be an effort to avoid wrongful-death lawsuits. But the church's reluctance to apologize is more complicated.
At a time when religions around the world are acknowledging and atoning for past sins, the massacre has left the Mormon Church in a quandary. Roman Catholics have apologized for their silence during the Holocaust, United Methodists for their massacre of American Indians during the Civil War, Southern Baptists for their support of slavery, and Lutherans for Martin Luther's anti-Jewish remarks. But unlike the leaders of other religions, who are believed to be guided by the hand of God, Mormon prophets are considered extensions of him.
To acknowledge complicity on the part of church leaders runs the risk of calling into question Brigham Young's divinity and the Mormon belief that they are God's chosen people. "If good Mormons committed the massacre," wrote a Mormon writer, Levi Peterson, "if prayerful leaders ordered it, if apostles and a prophet knew about it and later sacrificed John D. Lee, then the sainthood of even the modern church seems tainted." Believing they were doing God's work in ridding the world of "infidels," evangelical Mormon zealots committed one of the greatest civilian atrocities on American soil. Without a sustained attempt at accountability and atonement, the church will not escape the hovering shadow of that horrible crime.

Originally Posted by dogsoldier

Okay, do you want to discuss the wholesale slaughter of Mormons in Illinois? How they were driven out of Pennsylvania and Ohio? Of how Mexico sent an army into the Arizona territory in 1912 to and destroyed Mormon settlements along the border on the orders of the Mexican Catholic Church? One of the reasons Mormons adopted polygamy because so many Mormon men were killed and they had women and children without a provider. Some hung on to that attitude, most didn't. Only about 1% of all Mormons practice polygamy. Bet you didn't know there are Christian and Jewish sects that practice polygamy and child marriages, also. Mormons have been persecuted all through the 1800's and into modern times. I am not condoning evil they did. But to pick them out is bigotry. EVERY religion has blood on their hands.

And for the record, I am not a Mormon, never been, never will. Just keeping the record straight.

I wasn't defending other religions or asserting that they are in any way guilt-free. Not singling out Mormons, they were just the topic of conversation. I agree that every religion has blood on its' hands. Bet YOU didn't know I am an Atheist and think that ALL religion is dangerous and destructive.

MDR, no I didn't know you were a godless heathen....

It just looked like this thread was turning into a typical Mormon bashing session. Just pointing out that the Mormons have had a real rough road. Unlike you I believe in God and also believe that there is going to be a whole lot of self righteous people surprised as shit when he/she/it comes down and denies all the "only true religion" bullshit. When in fact, the true message of religions all boil down to "be good to each other".