Democrats love their Mormons, too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Reid As Senate Majority Leader and a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Harry Reid has achieved a more senior elected position in the United States government than any Mormon in history. Also, if he completes his term as Senate Majority Leader of the 112th Congress, he will be one of only six senators to serve at least six years as Majority Leader along with Mike Mansfield, Alben Barkley, Lyndon Johnson, Robert Byrd, and George Mitchell.
Why isn't this bigger news? This man has been a major conservative force in the U.S. for 40 years. He was famous in 1974, then the American media was silenced about him. So much, that when I questioned your citing the Moonie paper, you didn't know what I was talking about.
This is a much more diplomatic response. Although I personally think the birth certificate thing is a lame duck argument, I fail to see how someone's Constitutional eligibility for the presidency correlates with someone's religious beliefs. The "holy underwear" isn't much different than wearing a cross around my neck, a yamaka on my head, a nun's habit, a priest's collar, a hijab, a turban (for some), etc. I just decide to do it under my clothes instead of in front of everyone. It's a sign of my religious commitment. You've misspoken about African Americans. They've always been allowed in the church. It's the Priesthood they were denied, which is admittedly an important part of the religion, but not the same thing as barring them from the faith wholesale.
The Moonies were in the papers a lot in the mid-70s, an embarrassment to conservatives. So the mass media stopped talking about them, and now we have a generation or two who have never heard of them. They owned the #2 newspaper in Washington, D.C. and thus were very influential over powerful people there. Denny cites the Washington Times regularly. Here's one. http://sportstwo.com/threads/197878-WOLF-Barack-Obama’s-remedial-math-lesson?highlight=moonie
What I find a little creepy is the convention logo. It's a riff off of the Obama logo. He may be the nominee, but it's not about him. It's about the Democratic Party and the country. It's what the President can do for the people. It's not about President Obama. Here's the logo (I think the middle silhouette is the President)
Lets not resort to name calling. I'm not a bigot because I don't want a Mormon in the White House. Does that make all the Tea Party people bigots because they don't want a Mormon in the White House, either?
Clinton was a great President. His speech praising Obama will just be the cherry on top of another term for Obama.
http://exmormon.org/d6/drupal/Weird-things-about-Mormons-and-Mormonsim-as-Experienced-by-Mormons What a trip!
The Democrats have no problem putting their last president before Obama out there(Clinton). The Republicans would have put George W Bush out there but......oh yeah George W Bush served two freaking terms and....nothing! He doesn't exist anymore!
It's interesting to think that Republicans say "quit blaming Bush" (which the amount of they are exaggerating), but they themselves didn't even bother to invite him to the convention. They totally could've spun things to make him out to be a valuable asset. Even they know that he was a horrible president whose policies (and wars) put us in the situation we're in. As much as they want to try to blame Obama for it (either by saying his "policies" have ruined America...which they haven't, especially since he hasn't done much, or by saying that things that were not his own doing was his doing), they know what the results would be if they invited or highlighted Bush.
Since PapaG wants to talk sand castles and their relationship to Presidential candidates, let's keep this on topic: http://legalplanet.wordpress.com/20...tles-based-on-fantasy-oil-and-gas-production/ Is Romney Building Sand Castles Based on Fantasy Oil and Gas Production? August 24, 2012 tags: 2012, oil and gas development, Romney energy plan by Dan Farber I posted yesterday about Romney’s energy plan, which makes some remarkable claims about future energy production and its economic benefits. If you look at the sources cited by the campaign to support this plan, the campaign seems to rely heavily on Citigroup report called Energy 2020: North America, the New Middle East?. A number of their other sources are basically just touting the Citigroup report. I’m planning to dig into Citigroup’s economic projections more, but there also seem to be real questions about their energy projections. At least, some very credible questions have been raised about their optimistic projections for future energy production. In fact, the report raised some questions even in business circles: “Whether the report proves prescient or just another starry-eyed fantasy remains to be seen.” Wall Street Journal The Oil Drum carefully reviews Citigroup’s projections about future production. The conclusion is that they’re wildly optimistic. Here’s an example: Source: North Dakota Oil and Gas Agency Citigroup uses the light blue “possible” line. Basing your planning what you think may be possible is a bit risky, and I have to wonder if they make their own investment decisions and advise their clients on a similarly optimistic basis. Another key point to see about this graph is that each line shows a decline after the initial surge. This is really a key point. As the Oil Drum p0ints out, the “declining production from existing and future wells that appears to be neglected in the Citigroup study.” The reason is fairly simple: Those plays which will yield rapidly in generating high initial well production will, in turn, be the first that decline significantly and need replacement. Yet replacement will, over time, have to be in poorer parts of the formation, requiring that multiple wells replace the initial producer, and so bounds on production will be reached, likely before the end of the decade. Citigroup anticipates that the risks in development of the shale plays, whether in Texas or California, come as much from an inability to transport the oil generated and from environmental policy; they see few geological risks – which is a pity, since it is the geology that will control production and its decline, and the ultimate profitability of these ventures.
I couldn't get pics of the enormous Romney look-a-like sand statue that dwarfs this one. That's because it was built in China by child slave-laborers.
