DescentBB

[youtube]TxMD02zU9SE[/youtube]

This dude, Romney, needs to not freak out when someone questions him... I wan to tell him, dude, you don't have to say ★■◆●. Instead he starts panicking.

who gives a ★■◆● Obama lied about his faith and with his friendship with Jeremiah Wright. this is a NON ISSUE

The issue I see is, the guy can't take a little criticism. On the other hand Obama ★■◆●ing bows to everyone... ★■◆● the presidential election. I don't even care at this point.

He's easily provoked.

You'd be a bit provoked too if you we're being asked questions about something very dear and important to yourself... and the person asking the questions isn't letting you complete your response. The interviewer was being a total jerk.

A BIG difference between Romney and Obama... Obama considers his 'faith' as a 'preferred choice' while Romney considers his 'faith' as a integral deeply personal belief and standard. That's why Romney gets provoked when jerks like that interviewer tries to put words in his mouth. His 'faith' is extremely important and personal to him, not a simple 'preferred choice'.

Nothing more to be concerned.

You'd be a bit provoked too if you we're being asked questions about something very dear and important to yourself

No. Anyone who can't argue their position without panicking is new to the whole arguing thing...

It's clear Romney only looked good during the debates because Obama is just passive and weak.

Nothing more to be concerned.

Then you're part of the problem with this country...

We don't have anyone qualified running for president. How the ★■◆● does that happen??

Yeah, I feel the same way. Romney looked real flustered and agitated. I bet I could have that guy foaming at the mouth in 15 minutes. I don't see him keeping his head under great pressure, and the interviewer seemed as benign as they come. He asked a legitimate question of concern to us all, and Romney lost his head.

Looks to me like Romney is a good aggressive arguer, that’s just jake with me. Where I come from, that kind of thing is a virtue.

There's a difference between being an aggressive arguer, and someone who gets pissed off during an argument. Romney got pissed off, which means he must be insecure with his religioun, or the people who question his religion. If one is comfortable or secure with their religion, they won't get mad when someone tries to question their beliefs. Faith is always irrefutable in the mind of anyone with solid religious convictions.

That’s easy to say from here, but I’m willing to bet every talk show host and his brother is foaming at the mouth to take Romney down a peg.

And getting pissed off during an argument is par for the course…letting that hatred color your opinions?

Maybe the guy is sick and tired of getting irrelevant questions…wouldn’t be the first time.

Not used to Republicans with a backbone…huh. Used to seeing liberals act like that…right? But mostly conservatives just sit there and take it…well kudos to Romney.

I don't disgree with you Spidey, except in this case. I would agree with you except for the demeanor of the interviewer who wasn't being argumentative, AT ALL.

But all we see is an excerpt, and no other insight into how he is being treated in other interviews.

Also the interviewer is being very passive aggressive and accusing Romney of some things.

You don’t have to yell, to be argumentative.

That's true, but in this excerpt the interviewer seems level-headed and genuine and doing his best to calm things down. IMHO, Romney seeking public office is compelled to full disclosure.

About his personal religious beliefs?

No…out of bounds…unless the constitution doesn’t apply to presidents.

From the clip, I got the impression the interviewer was being passive-aggressive and trying to put Romney in an uncomfortable position by bringing up misconceptions about Mormonism. To me it looks like Romney acted appropriately, giving the guy hell for 1) talking about Mormonism without knowing the facts and 2) for making his religion an unnecessary talking point. We live in a secular society. Even if the president wanted to pass the craziest religious laws ever she/he couldn't without the help of the congress and senate. And you know my own personal view of course. You are equally crazy as a Mormon or a Christian. I give Romney the win in that video.

Yeah, maybe his beliefs are off limits, whatever. I saw someone lose composure over a very small thing. There was a million ways to disarm that conversation and move forward, and even take control, instead he threw a tantrum. All beliefs aside, that's worrisome, and also the fact he plainly states he can not separate his personal beliefs from his public service is worrisome. He is not there to represent himself and that takes a bigger man to deny himself at the wishes of the majority. Like I said, give me 15 minutes and I'll have that guy foaming at the mouth. Just a few minutes and I think he lacks self-control. I could be wrong, but who knows what he would do if he really felt threatened.

EDIT: Vision that's fine, but here's what I think about unbelievers. Their standards are dictated by their circumstances. Put you on a mountain with no food, and you will start eating folks. That's pretty crazy too.

flip wrote:here's what I think about unbelievers. Their standards are dictated by their circumstances. Put you on a mountain with no food, and you will start eating folks.

I'm going to use that quote, if you don't mind. I love it.

Lol, by all means.

I don't think his religion is off limits. But, I suspect he went into the interview with the intention of campaigning and got aggravated because he couldn't and it was a waste of time. You see this a lot with media companies trying to get ratings. Bait-and-switch. They tell the guests one thing then change the game when the interview starts. Romney probably had some more important talking points to go over and the interviewer probably closed that opportunity. Of course I'm speculating here because I didn't hear the interview nor could I possibly know what Romney's campaign was promised. But I generally don't trust a lot of media in the same way I don't trust politicians.

flip wrote:Vision that's fine, but here's what I think about unbelievers. Their standards are dictated by their circumstances. Put you on a mountain with no food, and you will start eating folks. That's pretty crazy too.

You're right. We would subjugate all the women bondage, rape them, abort the babies in the third trimester, then eat the aborted babies. It's just like farming! I love being an unbeliever! Of course I shouldn't joke like this because you are actually stupid enough to believe it.

Hehe, I would imagine the last week would testify against you and on my behalf

flip wrote:[..] but here's what I think about unbelievers. Their standards are dictated by their circumstances. Put you on a mountain with no food, and you will start eating folks.

And you think you wouldn't because you are a "believer" ? Think again.

Heh, you guys have no higher authority, so I'm at least one step ahead, and my life has proved it.

EDIT: But I will shoot a zombie in the head before they spread their mad cow disease

Let me ask you this Grendal, if you knew that consuming human flesh could wipe out 100's of thousands of people, would you still do it?

Derailing again. You really need to learn to respect other people if you want to be taken seriousely. Also, being condescending all the time makes discussions very tiring.

There is no question that humans will eat anything available in order to survive, including other humans. Your statement "Put you on a mountain with no food, and you will start eating folks." is exactly the situation you would too. Don't believe me ? Look up Uruguayan Air Force Flight 571. Your above statement makes you a hypocrit.

flip wrote:Heh, you guys have no higher authority, so I'm at least one step ahead, and my life has proved it.

Seriousely ?


Ok folks, nothing to see here, move along. And don't feed the troll !

The person who does right without fear of divine retribution is better than the person who does right because of fear of divine retribution.

Jeff250 wrote:The person who does right without fear of divine retribution is better than the person who does right because of fear of divine retribution.

It's not a contest. A believer and an unbeliever can both end up doing good. It doesn't matter if one needed religion, a special philosophy, or a mental code. It's not cheating. Whatever works, works.

Who has the better character? Morality isn't tricking people into doing the right thing--it's doing the right thing for the right reasons.

Heh, duh, Grendal that is exactly what I was referencing . You guys sure don't like your own medicine do ya Talk about hypocrites, Sheesh.

EDIT: Some of you guys are masters of avoiding simple questions and I've noticed when you don't want to answer you resort to the same tactics. I'm talking about you Grendal, who is the one in actuality to derail. I've actually thought about this so i ask again:

If you knew that consuming human flesh could wipe out 100's of thousands of people, would you still do it?

You can simply answer or run off name calling and hollering nanananboobboo.

So who here hasn't gotten pissed at some time or the other? TC would have us believe Romney is a robot. Glad to see he is human.

flip wrote:If you knew that consuming human flesh could wipe out 100's of thousands of people, would you still do it?

You can simply answer or run off name calling and hollering nanananboobboo.

Why would a person care? If a person is hungry or desperate enough to resort to eating human flesh, he or she sure wouldn't give a damn about the rest of humanity at that moment.

woodchip wrote:So who here hasn't gotten pissed at some time or the other? TC would have us believe Romney is a robot. Glad to see he is human

Heh, heh, you're right! But if that's that's the only emotion he's capable of, at least from what I've seen from PAM (plastic android man), and he's elected president, we're seriously screwed!

Jeff250 wrote:Who has the better character? Morality isn't tricking people into doing the right thing--it's doing the right thing for the right reasons.

An alcoholic overcoming alcoholism is just as good as any other alcoholic overcoming alcoholism, despite some needing to follow a recovery program.

flip wrote:EDIT: Some of you guys are masters of avoiding simple questions and I've noticed when you don't want to answer you resort to the same tactics. I'm talking about you Grendal, who is the one in actuality to derail.

Orly -- let's take a look at the timeline, speaks for itself: Your original statement "Put you on a mountain with no food, and you will start eating folks." followed by my question "And you think you wouldn't because you are a "believer" ?" answered by asking "if you knew that consuming human flesh could wipe out 100's of thousands of people, would you still do it?".

flip wrote: I've actually thought about this so i ask again: If you knew that consuming human flesh could wipe out 100's of thousands of people, would you still do it?

Let me restate: "There is no question that humans will eat anything available in order to survive, including other humans." Last time I checked I was human and I assume so are you. Your question doesn't make sense in the context given, nobody would give a damn if surviving by eating people would "wipe out 100's of thousands of people".

On a sidenote, am I the only person here who would love to see a picture of Romney showing off his magic underwear ?

And flip, try to get my alias right at least once. There's no 'a' in 'Grendel', for crying out loud.

Isaac wrote:An alcoholic overcoming alcoholism is just as good as any other alcoholic overcoming alcoholism, despite some needing to follow a recovery program.

I agree with that statement, assuming that the recovery program emphasized the right reasons for overcoming alcoholism, and the alcoholic followed the program for those reasons.

But what if there were two alcoholics, one like the above, and another who only gave it up after I coerced him with artificial consequences? For instance, suppose the second only would give it up after I held a gun to his head. Would you not say that the former has better character than the latter (nevermind my character for holding a gun to someone's head)?

Well, if were gonna run a timeline let's get it right. I was just speaking an opinion and like so many times Vision or someone like him says "we are all crazy." So, I said that's fine, but after hearing that so many times and ignoring it, I say "OK, we're crazy but you unbelievers have varying standards depending on circumstances." Then you nut up all the sudden and your remarks and TC's actually go towards proving my remarks.

You think I'd eat human flesh, to justify yourself doing so, but you are wrong. My standards are clear and it's only in times like those they are put to the test. Quit being so dan sensitive Grendal, I really don't care how your name is spelled. I honestly can't remember hardly a time you have even said much in these discussions, except to justify the eating of human flesh and the fact that you wouldn't give a ★■◆● about 100's of thousands of others to save your own skin makes you one very untrustworthy person in times of peril. I'd be watching you.

EDIT: I think we are both clear on where we stand and our opinions of each other, for me and you to continue this discussion would probably get nasty and unproductive, so, go ahead and get your last shot in, but don't expect nothing from me. K?

flip wrote:...you unbelievers have varying standards depending on circumstances.

It's because not every case is black and white and we use our brains to make decisions, not blindly following bronze age wisdom. And in answer to your question, which I didn't answer before because it's so ridiculous I thought it was a typo...

flip wrote:If you knew that consuming human flesh could wipe out 100's of thousands of people, would you still do it?

First, how would it ever be possible for this to happen? If you are going to come up with a hypothetical, at least make it reasonable. Second, no, if I knew that any action of mine would kill 100's of thousands of people, I certainly would not do it. (I don't even kill insects.) But that is not the same question as "what would you do if you were stranded on a mountain?" In answer to that question, as a matter of survival, I would probably be the first to offer my life and my flesh so that others could live. After all, isn't that what the Jesus did?

At the very heart of Christianity is human sacrifice and eating the flesh of the messiah. You know, transubstantiation? Why you would have any gripe against cannibalism is beyond reasoning. More nonsense floating around in your head.

vision wrote:At the very heart of Christianity is human sacrifice and eating the flesh of the messiah. You know, transubstantiation? Why you would have any gripe against cannibalism is beyond reasoning.

Human sacrifice is not at the heart of Christianity. Christ was put to death as a criminal by the Roman authorities. Transubstantiation is uniquely a Catholic doctrine, and the Biblical eating the flesh and drinking the blood of the messiah is symbolic--it is clearly set forth as such in the scriptures. Cannibalism is the acting of eating another person, which is kind of the ultimate antisocial act, aside from being utterly demented.

Vision, I think we've had enough of your lies and twisted statements on this BB with regard to Christianity. To dislike Christianity is your right. To claim reason or intelligence while twisting the facts to bludgeon myself, Flip, or anyone else with regard to our beliefs is beneath the standards of honest, civilized discourse. You've been an ***hole and a liar, and I'm calling you out on it.

To everyone else: Are the facts and their proper place in discussion impertinent in arriving at a conclusion?

Sergeant Thorne wrote:...the Biblical eating the flesh and drinking the blood of the messiah is symbolic--it is clearly set forth as such in the scriptures.

Oh my bad, I didn't know it was just symbolic cannibalism that is Ok with Christians. Well, someone better go tell these Christians they are doing it wrong. Good luck. You probably won't have any better luck than converting a Jehovah's Witness, Protestant, Roman Catholic, Pentecostal, Baptist, or Mormon to your special "brand."

Vision wrote:*reassert defeated cannibalism argument*
*bring up wrongs perpetrated by "Christians" and attempt to tie in to failed argument*
*wish opponent luck*
*assert ineffectuality of opponents arguments*
*listing variances on the subject to bring truth of opponents arguments into doubt without actually having to deal in specifics*
*hinted assertion that opponent's position is absolutely unique*

You can't win, but you can certainly play that game longer than I will.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:You can't win, but you can certainly play that game longer than I will.

My win by forfeit. Have a nice day.

I refuse to keep answering to you guys stereotypes. You know nothing about me and I am not the one who has hurt your feelings. My only premise that cannabalism could cause some kind of mass killing flu or disease is based on how mad cow disease was "created" by feeding cows to cows, a form of cannabalism. Plus, some things just shouldn't be done. There are people starving all over the earth right now, do you see them eating each other? No, they just sit there and waste away. A soldier in Benghazi just lost his life saving others, I'm sure you would not do the same. You guys are so against any form of godliness, it's making you worst than the worst. I am almost certain you could not be trusted in say, Nazi Germany, because you have already decided you would do anything to save your own life. Now, let me alone.

BWahahahahaha. OMG, this is gold.