SoutherDem
SoutherDem's JournalQuestion on Mormonism
I know very little about the LDS church. But, from my own religious background I have been part of the Church of God, Assemblies of God and Baptist, all of which teach in the rapture of the church. I also and most recently been part of the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. which does not teach the rapture of the church.
Does the Mormon church teach the Rapture of the church or anything like it?
NBC's Olympic schedule
My at&t uverse has an olympic app. It allows you to see all the channels at once in multi-view. I noticed while Melissa Harris Perry is being preempted CNBC is running "paid programing". I looked up the schedule on the internet and it seems with all of the delayed programing anyway they could have shifted the between channels and delayed a few events to allow those two shows to air, in one hour versions if necessary.
Am I the only one frustrated the way NBC is choosing which networks and programs to preempt?
Has anyone else heard this?
Several weeks ago I heard on (I think) Diane Rehm a discussion on should Israel attack Iran and if the US should help. While I don't remember all the details and can't find the exact show basically said the following;
If the US lead the attack it would at best set back the Iran nuclear effort by only 2 years.
If Israel attacked only it would at best set back the Iran nuclear effort by 6-18 months.
Any attack on Iran may cause an outright war between Iran and Israel with other countries in the area joining in most likely supporting Iran.
This one scared me. Israel's only real hope of doing lasting harm to Israel would be to do the unthinkable and going nuclear.
Has anyone else heard this nightmare scenario?
It is all in the context.
Okay, it is an election year. I know things will be taken out of context. We do it, they do it. You know "all's fair in love an war".
But, IMHO, Romney and the RNC has gone to a new low. It is one thing to take something out of context by not including the sentence before and/or after, but to splice words together is going a bit too far. It should also be very easy to rebut, but it still seems to grow roots.
Just to see when the DNC has taken Romney out of context I discovered something surprising to me. They hurt themselves by cutting the full statement more than if they left it as is and ran in a different direction. I will give 4 example;
1. "I am also, unemployed" - Yes he was hearing stories of people who were unemployed and may have been making a joke, but it shows he felt it was something to joke about. Not something someone living on unemployment wants to hear.
2. "I am not concerned about the very poor"- he then states the he isn't concerned for the very rich either he was worried about the 95%. Well if you take the 5% which he isn't worried about and take away the 1 or 2% he think are very rich you are given 3 or 4%, that is all he feels the "safety net" is for. His plans want to fix the safety net by tanking it down.
3. "I like firing people" - he continued to refer to those giving him a service. This could be taken two ways, he is of a wealthy class with "servants" or simply give the real meaning of the speech, he was wanting to bust unions.
4. " I have already released two years, I won't release any more tax returns" (paraphrase) - before the said that he the Democrats would distort the returns, he knows something is being hidden, he followed by saying the 2nd year really has not been released so we won't have that 2nd year till a week or two before the election, so really he has released 1 year.
I think the DNC is doing Romney a favor by taking his speeches out of context, because in context they are even worst.
Now Romney or the RNC has three times taken speeches extremely out of context.
1. "If we continue to talk about the economy we will lose" - that quote was a quote from McCain.
2. "You didn't build that on your own" - we know that was spliced, and Obama was talking about roads.
3. "Our plan worked" - once again he was not only taken out of context but spliced.
Romney and the RNC have stooped to new lows in what is the dirtiest campaign ever.
Okay, I will quit ranting and get off my soapbox.
One down, two to go.
Okay, Mittens is out of the country. He has insulted the British people and their ability to host the Olympic games causing Prime Minister Cameron and the Mayor of London to publicly call Romney out on his statements. Tonight, he will have his hand out to the bankers who have just been caught rigging the system for contributions to his campaign. I think tonight will go rather well, he knows how to kiss up to big money.
He has two more countries to go. I wonder how to put his "silver foot" in his mouth in Israel and Poland.
Any guesses?
Can you imagine a President Romney?
I can't. Not just because I am for President Obama, it is because I have no clue who he is or what he will do.
He is the most secretive candidate running for president I have ever seen.
Records of his are either destroyed or kept under lock and key.
He has changed his opinions more than any candidate I have ever seen, he even keeps changing back and forth.
He is the quickest to claim his opponent has no plan while he has no plan or simply lofty outlines with no details.
He is the quickest to criticize his opponent while suggesting we do exactly what his opponent is doing.
He is the quickest to take credit for things which he had nothing to do with, some he was even publicly against.
He is the quickest to not take credit for things which he did, even if the proof is very public.
He wants to use rules which apply only to his opponent but not him or apply only to him but not his opponent.
He does fine if he is reading a teleprompter, but let him say anything on his own he puts his "silver foot" in his mouth.
So, just what would the nightmare called a Romney Presidency actually be?
Last night I watched the 1975 movie Hindenburg
I have had it for years, in fact my copy is on VHS, if that give you any idea of the age of my copy but it has been years since I have watched it and had forgotten much of the movie.
You may now be asking what does this have to do with Politics 2012?
The movie for those who may have not seen it or like me it had been a while, is about the final flight of the German Airship, Hindenburg. One thing which was made very clear was the methods of the Nazi government, including the actions of the Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda (MPEP).
Now for Politics 2012. FOX News is serving the position of the MPEP, Rush, Glenn and the others on AM Conservative Talk Radio (AMCTR) are part of the MPEP too.
I don't just mean they are taking the Republican side as does some of the other media outlets which don't actually allow a fair discussion but they are simply taking sides.
What FOX and AMCTR are doing is actively creating deliberately false negative information about the other side or false positive information about their side, just like the MPEP. They, in the cheaply veiled facade of news are helping to create an alternative reality which millions are willing to believe.
FOX and AMCTR is dangerous for our nation, our way of life.
Sadly, I don't know the solution. I don't know the answer.
What should we do to stop this madness?
With the 1st Amendment is there anything which can be done?
Does the 1st Amendment defend this type of speech?
What do you all think?
Defend My Dividend commercial
I keep seeing a commercial where a group called Defend My Dividend states there is soon going to be a doubling in dividend tax. It of course makes it sound as if this is going to hurt the middle class. I know a lot of people own some stock which pays dividends, but generally I think of dividends as impacting the rich more than the poor.
I went to the website and no surprise it didn't give me but one side. I did notice the following in the "about" area of the website
Can someone who understands what is going on help me on what is this really about? Why is this important to the Edison Electric Institute and the American Gas Association?
Should we repeal the 2nd Amendment
I know there have been at least two polls but by request I am adding one more with additional options than yes or no. Please forgive the new poll and what could be considered redundancy in some of the questions I want to try to cover as many options as possible. Please add comments as you feel needed.
Thanks
Questions: Should we repeal the 2nd Amendment?
Good luck with that.
Yesterday in the flood of posts about the Aurora shooting I noticed a common phrase used by the pro-gun members here on DU, “Good luck with that”, I didn’t notice if it was just one or two posters who posted a lot or if it was being repeated by several posters.
I also don’t know the real intent of the phrase.
I could have been arrogance, “We have the support of the majority of the American people, we have the NRA, we have the politicians, and we have the money, so shut up”.
It could have been aspiration, “Are we having this discussion again, come on, nothing is going to change, so why not just give up”.
It could have been desperation, “Oh, gee you are right there really is no reason to have a 100 clip magazine, or an assault weapon to hunt or for self protection not to mention 6000 rounds of ammo.”
It may have been a combination of all three, but never the less it seemed to be the “phrase of the day”.
But, it made me think of the phrase beyond the possible intent.
I started thinking what if this phrase had been around for the last 250 years. I thought of times when it may have been used in the past.
• When we the King of England received the Declarations of Independence did he say “Good luck with that”?
• When some wanted to free the slaves did the white plantation owners say “Good luck with that”?
• When women wanted the right to vote did the men say “Good luck with that”?
• When the blacks marched for civil rights did the bigots say “Good luck with that”?
• When progressives say we want an end to Citizens United do the wealthy say “Good luck with that”?
We have seen how four of those examples did change and one is still playing itself out, so I do see how circumstances can change the tide and what once seemed impossible becomes possible.
So my question is what event or events would it take for the tide of public opinion to shift the balance of power in the argument of guns?
Profile Information
Member since: Sat Jan 22, 2011, 01:32 PMNumber of posts: 2,307
