Contrarian Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 You have been exposed to everyone on this forum to what you truly are. A religious bigot.. You tossed out the title of bigot... One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ. Bigots may have more in common with God than one might think. Legend has it that Rollo, the first duke of Normandy, refused to kiss the foot of the French king Charles III, uttering the phrase bi got, his borrowing of the assumed Old English equivalent of our expression by God. Although this story is almost surely apocryphal, it is true that bigot was used by the French as a term of abuse for the Normans, but not in a religious sense. Later, however, the word, or very possibly a homonym, was used abusively in French for the Beguines, members of a Roman Catholic lay sisterhood. From the 15th century on Old French bigot meant "an excessively devoted or hypocritical person." Bigot is first recorded in English in 1598 with the sense "a superstitious hypocrite." Isn't it true that your belief system condems ALL that don't believe as you do as lesser, uncivilized, wrongheaded, abominable, blind, damned, ignorant pagan heathens...??? Seems that Mormons are BIGOTS...!!!! Quick question Vaston... According to the tenets of LDS doctrine... Are Jews, Catholics, Muslims, Bhuddists, Taoists, etc going to see salvation ...?? What about homosexuals....??? Are they going to see heaven..??? Please "enlighten us"... See Willard obsfucate the issue and show his bigotry So if your brand of salvation and heaven doesn't include homosexuals, and jews, and Catholics, and Muslims... Then you ascribe to a HUGE system of Insitutional BIGOTRY...!! Amatuer... See what Darron Smith a Black Mormon has to say about the institutional bigotry in the church/BYU.... here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
physasst Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 This thread is interesting.....predictable...but interesting. I could care less about Romney's mormonism.... Let's bring it back to healthcare.....let's talk about the absolute hogwash that he is trying to peddle. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/10/05/romneys-pulling-up-the-ladder-behind-him/ Ezra isn't always right, but for a non economist, he has a remarkably good grasp of most economic fundamentals.....here's the part that you should know. But there’s something else Romney said about health care at the debate that matters much more, but is getting much less attention. The best course for health care is to do what we did in my state: craft a plan at the state level that fits the needs of the state. And then let’s focus on getting the costs down for people, rather than raising it with the $2,500 additional premium. A fair read of that statement would make you think Romney wants to make it possible for every state to follow Massachusetts’s example. But a fair read of his policies makes it clear that Romney wants to make it impossible for any state to follow Massachusetts’s example — and perhaps impossible for Massachusetts to keep the very plan Romney passed going. The key question for any health-care plan is how are you going to pay for it? The Massachusetts plan used three funding sources. The first — and, in some ways, the most important — was a $385 million annual payment then-Sen. Ted Kennedy had negotiated for the state’s safety net hospitals. President George W. Bush wanted to end the payment. That set off a panic in Massachusetts, and led to Romney and Kennedy going to the Bush administration and making a deal: Massachusetts could keep the money if they put it towards a universal health-care plan. Oh, and they needed to come up with that plan soon. This was the threat that forced Romney and the state’s Democrats to pass a plan, as not passing a plan would mean losing billions in free federal money. The state also found two other funding sources. They covered absolutely everyone they could cover in their Medicaid program so they could get the most generous possible match from the federal government. Right now, Medicaid is helping Massachusetts cover kids and adults up to 300 percent of the poverty line — an incredible deal. Finally, Massachusetts had imposed a tax to reimburse hospitals for the care they provided to the uninsured. Romney took the money from that tax and put it toward the law. That’s two pots of federal money and a tax. So how much of Romney’s proposal relied on these funds? “100 percent,” says Jonathan Gruber, an MIT economist who helped Romney design the law. “That was my whole job. Saying whether we could fit what he wanted to do within those three funding sources.” The legislature ended up adding a bit of general revenue to the law. But the fact remains: The Massachusetts law relies on federal dollars and state taxes. But Romney’s health-care proposal doesn’t make it easier for other states to follow the Massachusetts example. It makes it almost impossible. He’s not offering states access to federal funds for universal coverage. There's also the issue of the healthcare plan that the Romney family bought. He indicated on his recent rax return that he paid 15,000 for a family plan in Mass. This would have been from the exchange. The exchange that FEDERAL TAX DOLLARS helped to set up....so we are all in effect, subsidizing Romney's OWN health insurance...nice... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hemegroup Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Once again, YOUR interpretation of the tenets of MY religion. Directed by falsehoods perpetrated by people that choose to hate, just like you. You have been exposed to everyone on this forum to what you truly are. Continue your anti-Mormon tirade, your hate is palpable. You lost the moral high ground a long time ago. Goodnight Contrarian. Sleep well. I personally am still waiting for you to answer Contrarian's questions but I understand that's opening a can of worms you may not want to address in this thread. He's posted some very informative links. I do agree with you about this country and allowing religious freedom, whether it is to your Jesus Christ, or another individual's Buddah, or another individual's Ganesh, the Hindu God who represents removal of obstacles. But simply stating faith in a deity isn't going to answer questions presented to you and it certainly isn't enough to solve a country's issues or bring all citizens together as equals. And Contrarian is right ... bigotry comes in many forms. It takes an honest and mature human to admit to that and to understand how to better override it in their personal lives and communities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Contrarian Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Once again, YOUR interpretation of the tenets of MY religion. Directed by falsehoods perpetrated by people that choose to hate, just like you. You have been exposed to everyone on this forum to what you truly are. Continue your anti-Mormon tirade, your hate is palpable. You lost the moral high ground a long time ago. Goodnight Contrarian. Sleep well. Umm... I'm not "anti-mormon" and don't have any "mormon hate"... any more so than I could be "anti- islam" or "anti-catholicism" or have islam or catholic hate... (Some people hate Islamic Theocratic Extremist, but only because they are Islamic and have NO PROBLEM with the Theocratic and/or Extremist part). NEVER have I claimed any "moral high ground"... I'm a human pragmatist/realist. I don't ascribe to any man made, institutionalized idea/ideal of some "Moral Highground" fashioned by hippocrites of the highest order to control the sheeple entirely too weak minded to think for themselves. The mere utterance of the term "moral highground" evokes imagery that's nauseating and is about as absurd to me as the ideas of "Lord Xenu" and "Thetans" and "Clearing"... "YaKub" and "god in UFOs"... and "Kolob" and "reformed egyptian." To reiterate for Clarity: Wrong again...I've had PLENTY of chances to verbalize my concern/disdain for any/all organized fixed delusions know by the populus as religion... My concern is NOT with YOUR belief system... it is with someone with YOUR belief system running our nation. Believe what you want in Utah... but when someone starts trying to unpack the crystals and magic underwear in the whitehouse is when I'm concerned. Its all politics and since it ok to talk about P-O-L-I-T-C-S here on the PA Forum now... I just have to say that I really don't want a guy running our nation or the free world... who believes in magical underwear or that a entire race of people have ONLY been worthy of salvation and heaven for 34 years.... even though I don't even believe in "salvation" or "heaven" I really don't care what YOU believe and wore a uniform for almost a decade to defend the principles that allow YOU to believe and practice what YOU want. As a matter of fact... would put it back on to defend YOUR right to continue to practice what you believe. Even thought the foundations of YOUR beliefs are steeped in bigotry and not suited for the leader of the free world. To all thinking about voting for this guy... Is a Necromancer or Scientologist next up for the whitehouse..??? How's about this: A "Mormon" President A "Jehovah Witness" for vice president A "Flat earther" for Sec of State A "Scientologist" for Secretary of Defense A "Creationist" for Secretary of Education Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Contrarian Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 I Guess this is where our NEXT presidential candidate will come from... One of "L. Ron's flock: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrBob Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 This thread is closed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.