Study: Liberals/non-religious less likely to vote for a Mormoon

[Chachma v'Oz]

Didn't he have a dust-up once with money changers? Maybe our Wall Street Temple needs a little cleansing.

[86Dùde]

ANTI SEMITE ALERT!

[Malcolm Wright]

It's no surprise to those of us on DA. We didn't need a study to verify what we have learned through experience: Liberals and the Non-religious are really ANTI-religious...Sorta makes them bigots and hypocrites doesn't it?...shocking

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins...sm-on-the-rise

Sigh.
Your premise is based on one of the most basic errors of logic.

Just because someone is less likely to vote for someone of a certain religious persuasion, it doesn't make them a bigot or a hypocrite.
Most people in the United States would be less likely to vote for a Satan worshiper - would that make us all bigots and hypocrites?

Caddis, you are not doing your part to rid the internet of STOOPID.

[Malcolm Wright]

Sounds like the democratic party.

I find this very interesting. Chach wrote out a well thought-out post, as he often does, placing everything in its proper context.
What do you do?

You pluck one sentence from it so that you can make a partisan stab at the Democratic party.
Chach's post, and your response to it, summarize what the two of you are about.

M.

[big steve]

[QUOTE Obama is a Christian.

---------
I doubt it. Why does his wife never go to the ME with him?

[DamnYankee]

[QUOTE=Truth Teller;2291419]

Obama is a Christian.

BO is a Black Liberation Theorist he was taught that by his anti Semite reverend. There is no such thing as collective salvation in Christianity also taught by the marxist Theorists.

[DamnYankee]

I must have hit a nerve with you people.

Live with it. More Christians among our Founding Fathers than you kooks care to admit. And it bugs you people to no end.

[Freedom&Liberty]

We are not talking about economic views, we are talking about religious views. In fact, Jesus was all about wealth redistribution!

Idiot.

[caddis]

Sigh.
Your premise is based on one of the most basic errors of logic.

Just because someone is less likely to vote for someone of a certain religious persuasion, it doesn't make them a bigot or a hypocrite.
Most people in the United States would be less likely to vote for a Satan worshiper - would that make us all bigots and hypocrites?

Caddis, you are not doing your part to rid the internet of STOOPID.

That's odd, 62 replies and The Malcoln-tent comes on to call me stoopid for the opening post which everyone has discussed. Which past thread are you still butt-hurt over?

[caddis]

I find this very interesting. Chach wrote out a well thought-out post, as he often does, placing everything in its proper context.
What do you do?

You pluck one sentence from it so that you can make a partisan stab at the Democratic party.
Chach's post, and your response to it, summarize what the two of you are about.

M.

You contributed two whole posts on this thread and both concerned me instead of the topic. You should do two things Malcoln-tent:

1) Read the entire exchange between Chach and me because I actually said more then what you have quoted.

2) Shut the fuck up and go bait elsewhere

[Malcolm Wright]

That's odd, 62 replies and The Malcoln-tent comes on to call me stoopid for the opening post which everyone has discussed. Which past thread are you still butt-hurt over?

Sorry to join the party late

That's the problem with posting stoopid - it endures... Because you were in such a hurry to make a partisan attack on those who don't think like you, you posted something stupid on this board, and it is still there 62 replies later...

I probably won't be the last to discover this gem of yours. It might be unearthed and read by aliens 10,000 years from now, who knows? And you won't be around to call them names if that's the case

You can save me some effort... did you admit anywhere in the 62 replies that your OP was stoopid?

M.

[Malcolm Wright]

You contributed two whole posts on this thread and both concerned me instead of the topic.

Actually my other post directly addressed your OP.
And this one is as much about Chach as it is about you.

You should do two things Malcoln-tent:

1) Read the entire exchange between Chach and me because I actually said more then what you have quoted.

Why should I? I use my time as I see fit.
My comment still stands perfectly despite your whining. You took a well-thought out post by Chach, devoid of partisan bullshit. And what did you do with it? Quoted one line so you could get back to your partisan bullshit. No matter how much you whine, that much is evident to anyone who cares to read Chach's post and your response.

I understand you dislike being called on your bullshit. Its perfectly understandable.

It is acceptable for people to not read entire threads. Your OP was entirely premised on partisan bullshit, and 62 replies later, I observed that you were able to wrangle the thoughtful response of another, right back into partisan bullshit, where apparently you prefer to wallow... now, you'll excuse me for calling it the way I see it.

2) Shut the fuck up and go bait elsewhere

I'm not baiting, I'm applying the PARTISAN BULLSHIT label. If you disagree with the label, please provide an argument against it.

M.

[garyd]

Again there is nowhere in the bible where God or Jesus commanded anyone to build a huge bureacracy whose chief purpose seems to be to allow the hoity toity left to never have to actually come into contact with a poor person.

[Chachma v'Oz]

Apparently there's no definition of Christian that means "adhering to the teachings of Christ", either, or anything in the bible that addresses love of money, killing, stealing and lying.

I'm just going by what I see among self-described "Christians".

[Freedom&Liberty]

Dumbass. Jesus NEVER said that government should be used to redistribute wealth. If YOU want to help people, do it yourself because that's what Jesus would do. The left has serious issues when it comes to love of money, killing, stealing and lying.

[caddis]

A

My comment still stands perfectly despite your whining.

Who's whining? You now have 4 lame posts that serve no purpose other than to attack me personally. I've had an enjoyable week here Malcunt, haven't had much interaction with you, didn't have to grade any of your basic algebra mistakes, I had a few civil debates with Chach, and I avoided the thread where you and a few other dipshits tried to convince us that 9-11 was an inside job.

You took a well-thought out post by Chach, devoid of partisan bullshit. And what did you do with it? Quoted one line so you could get back to your partisan bullshit.

Imagine that, partisan bullshit in a thread about liberals not willing to vote for a Mormon in the "Inside Politics" forum! shocking. As to the first part of what I just quoted, go back and read posts 32 and 36 because you will discover that you have no clue as to what you are talking about...again.

No matter how much you whine, that much is evident to anyone who cares to read Chach's post and your response.

The only thing evident is that you are too lazy to read the entire thread (or too knee jerk in your response so that you could start a pissing match).

It is acceptable for people to not read entire threads.

LMFAO...and you are criticizing me for not responding to an entire post????

Your OP was entirely premised on partisan bullshit

Yeah? So? What thread in this forum isn't?

and 62 replies later,

Of which you read....4? 5? 6?

I observed that you were able to wrangle the thoughtful response of another, right back into partisan bullshit

And yet you didn't observe the few posts that followed where I explained how those that refuse to vote for a Mormon have replaced religious dogma with political dogma. You see Malcan't I actually kept it on topic the entire time. If you want me to go further, those liberals that are "less likely to vote for a Mormon" Would vote for a Mormon Democrat without hesitation because their Democratic creed demands they support the candidate without question....That goes back to my original assertion...makes them hypocrites.

[BooRadley]

Dumbass. Jesus NEVER said that government should be used to redistribute wealth. If YOU want to help people, do it yourself because that's what Jesus would do.

Why do republicans only like the separation of church and state when it comes to taxes?

[Chachma v'Oz]

It's that "love of money" that their bible says is the root of all evil (1 Timothy 6:10).

No, wait. That would be hypocritical of them. Maybe it's just their preference to treat The Word of God like they treat our constitution, a menu from which to pick and choose the parts they agree with.

[BooRadley]

They came and said to him, “Teacher, we know that you are sincere. You don't favor any individual, because you pay no attention to external appearance. Rather, you teach the way of God truthfully. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar or not? Should we pay them or should we not?”

Seeing through their hypocrisy, Jesus replied to them, “Why are you testing me? Bring me a denarius and let me look at it.”

So they brought one. Then he asked them, “Whose face and name are on this?”

They said to him, “Caesar's.”

So Jesus said to them, “Give back to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.” And they were utterly amazed at him.

Matthew 22:15-22; Luke 20:20-26

[Freedom&Liberty]

Why do republicans only like the separation of church and state when it comes to taxes?

Why do liberals want their church to be government?