“this is Obviously a socal / psychological Boost for Obama & any undecided voters.
Romney comes off as a rather 'sterile' individual, regardless of his other qualities; people know that our relationships with other countries are of Prime Value, the U.S. isn't an Island, and people remember Romney's disaterous trip of a few months ago.
“it appears... that Rmoney has Written Off Ohio & Michigan; his appeal is ONLY to the Right-Wing fanatics that believe that bail-outs are only for the Financial Institutions they own stocks in.
'Too Big to Fail' is TOO BIG!
Stop Selling the U.S. elections to the Mega-Industrialists!!”
“It's easier to Fool a person than to convince them that they're Being Fooled;
that's the 'wisdom' that Republicans are depending on.
Voter Suppression, anyone? HUGE FAIL for the R's.
Ann Romney says she's concerned about Mitt's mental health 'If He Wins'... LOTS of votes there.
Mitt tells us that "Michigan Trees are the Right Height", and "Corporations are People, my friend".
la maqina on Oct 2, 2012 at 12:20:49
“Well we've been concerned about his mental health all along. But America should really be concerned about it's mental health to even see this race this close!!! Obama-Biden 2012”
nirek on Oct 2, 2012 at 12:14:23
“His actions also tell us it's okay to carry your dog on the roof of your car, or it's okay to hold a kid down and cut his hair off as a joke. His actions show that he would send jobs off shore to gain profits for himself and his ilk.”
“as Southernmost tells us, MRs FIRST LOYALTY is to the mormon church & mormon prophet ('A Corporate Sole'). Carefully consider what happened with Garn/Hatch when the LDS church came out Against the MX missile... COMPLETE 180!”
treadway123 on Jul 2, 2012 at 16:37:44
“"White Horse Prophecy"------They expect their Religion to Dominate the U.S!”
“To me, the main point here is that the LDS church built this with 'extra' money, money in excess of the 10 % donations that are represented as needed for the operation of the church. I believe they announced that the total costs were 5 billion to the C of Commerce.
Regardless, some will compare that to how much the LDS church (it's supporters) contribute to economic development OUTSIDE the developed countries, say like schools, water projects, etc. in developing countries...
That shouldn't be considered as cynical, but rather as a factual comparison. Comparisons are just as valid for information - learning as absolutes are. "They don't expect to make money"? well, how were the contractors selected? LDS owned companies ? Does the LDS own stock in Taubman? LDS employees are REQUIRED to pay back 'contribute' 10% of their income to the church; isn't that coercion? Calling those 'donations' is quite a stretch.”
Effren Hernandez on Mar 23, 2012 at 14:15:56
“For some, even defining what the law of thiting is, is difficult and controvertial...”
“Gordon Hinckley was a PR weasel, he couldn't make up his mind what doctrine (teachings) were and which weren't.
Now they keep TSM restricted to telling how many widows he helped.
Classics, fer sure.”
analisae on Mar 4, 2012 at 16:43:18
“I'm interested in who you think is controlling the church president. From the research I've seen in the corporation of the church, the president is the only actual member of it. I think it's called a "corporation sole". So, all the money goes to him, and he instructs where it goes. He would have no earthly reason to answer to anyone else, no?”
Kiwi57 on Mar 4, 2012 at 15:42:46
"Gordon Hinckley was a PR weasel, he couldn't make up his mind what doctrine (teachings) were and which weren't."
Gordon B. Hinckley, like all of the leaders of the Church, was at all times and in every way better than his critics.”
“Yup folks, that's it.
the Quorum of Apostles and the First Presidency DIDN'T KNOW WHY African-Americans were denied leadership opportunities in the LDS church for about 130 years.
Next: We didn't know why: Sexism, anti-gay restrictions.
sinbad usn on Mar 5, 2012 at 12:41:46
“the sound of tinkling brass”
rainey on Mar 4, 2012 at 20:56:53
“It's odd. Because any one of you can go on the internet and see all of Brigham Young's specifically racist pronouncements. But even if The Brethren don't know when or how it started wouldn't it have been merely responsible of them to find out that there was an ecclesiastical basis for it before they denied full participation to the Black Saints they took tithing from?”
“Over & Over, ONE POINT COMES THRU:
WE NEED TO DUMP THE CURRENT ELECTORAL SYSTEM in favor of POTUS being elected by the Popular Vote.
When the current system was designed, communications were primative. Vote tallies were easily cheated/manipulated, and we're left with an Elitist Relic of the past.
Democratic presidential votes 'Don't Count' in Utah or most of the Mid-West; Republican votes 'Don't Count' on the USWC or in most of the NE.
Time to CHANGE”
c-tom on Sep 12, 2012 at 12:49:47
“It would also be a good time to change the Senate: one from each state and the rest apportioned by population.”
Ulalume s Ague on Sep 12, 2012 at 12:34:44
“That would take a Constitutional Ammendment. The Republcians would NEVER go for that. They would lose everytime in a popular vote contest.”
alpinste on Sep 12, 2012 at 11:52:50
“While I agree that there are problems with the electoral college, I think it is still a pretty clever way to balance people and land. For example, Montana (my home state) has a population of about 1 million or about 0.3% of the U.S. population while its 94 million acres comprise 4% of the U.S.. Montana's 3 electoral votes comprise 0.5% of the 538 votes in the electoral college, laughably small but signifigant for Montanans. I would be happier to see canidates awarded a portion of a state's electoral votes based on the voter results instead of winner take all.”
TheWM on Sep 12, 2012 at 11:29:25
“"WE NEED TO DUMP THE CURRENT ELECTORAL SYSTEM in favor of POTUS being elected by the Popular Vote."
Even better, we could switch to proportional representation, also known as the parliamentary system. There's a reason so many countries use it.”
Awaiting theIdiocracy on Sep 12, 2012 at 11:15:31
“And Democrats won' t go for it, because the way it's set up starts them out of the gate with 196 electoral votes (237 if you count NM, PA and MI, which are very, very likely blue, especially NM).”
ReasonIsMyReligion on Sep 12, 2012 at 10:49:51
“I have mixed feelings on the proposed change (despite having lived in populous blue states getting overlooked), but please do note that the RATIO of House Members to Senators is now much greater than in 1787.
In short, populous states these days are super-populous relative to the 2-senator count back then. Back then state weight had more weight, but current population imbalances overly reward under-populous states, who keep their extra weight in the Senate to pass legislation regardless.
I have been mulling a compromise: proportional distributing of electoral votes by state. It gives some "senator weight" to small states, but eliminates the "winner-take-all" problems.”
DoubleYellowLines on Sep 12, 2012 at 08:11:24
“I agree with you, but changing the status quo is a very hard process. The GOP will never go for it (as they don't have the voting numbers when you look ahead 5, 10 years).”