Romney dropping out and asking his delegates to swing behind McCain. The absurdly small bit of rationale behind Mike Huckabee's bid has disappeared.

Rush agreeing with Laexile on not having McCain reach out. Though I'm not sure my idea for him to go on the show being a good thing is contradicted by Rush's opinion either.

And the interview on the whole demonstrates pretty much why I more or less like Rush way more than any of the other talk radio people. He gets the joke.

jerseyhoya wrote:Rush agreeing with Laexile on not having McCain reach out. Though I'm not sure my idea for him to go on the show being a good thing is contradicted by Rush's opinion either.

And the interview on the whole demonstrates pretty much why I more or less like Rush way more than any of the other talk radio people. He gets the joke.

Rush is an entertainer, first and foremost, and he's a damn good broadcaster. Unlike Hannity and Savage, who are absolutely terrible "radio professionals" in addition to being politically repugnant.

jerseyhoya wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:I apologize if I've already posted this blog on "low information" voters but I think it's excellent and well worth reading.

Good read.
Makes me warm and fuzzy inside to know that TV ads are a somewhat likely cause of Obama killing her in VA and MD. News like that is good for business.

I'd also think that the TV Ads importance for Obama voters can be somewhat attributed to the fact that people already know who Clinton is, as where Obama is a new face to many low information voters. So those who said ads were important for Obama may be because it was the first they've seen of him at all, as where almost nobody could say that was the case for Hillary.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzGbj_ERlJ0&e[/youtube]

Hillary going negativeish.

SEIU to endorse Obama?

This would be big. For one thing, it would help in the big states coming up; for another, it would make it more difficult for Edwards to endorse Clinton, effectively sticking a thumb in the eye of his labor buddies.

I hope Hillary looses miserably in Ohio and Texas. I would love to see how much of an ungraceful loser should would be. I'm thoroughly convinced that the Clintons believe that they are bigger than their party. If Obama takes the elected delegates, their party cannot allow Clinton to weasel a nomination with super delegates and lawsuits in FL and MI. It would be the death blow for their party.

I've seen a few Hillary supporters already talking lawsuits, though I really don't know how successful they'd be. These elections are designed by party rules, not the Constitution. Any lawyers want to chime in? Would the courts even want to hear a case like this? I assume they would get thrown out. Those states knew the rules and broke them anyway.

pacino wrote:Mormonism is no less weird than general vanilla Christianity. Not sure why it gets this big 'crazy' label. It does kind of rewrite history, though.

I know you hate christians, but you do know how the founder of their religion died right?

He got attacked by an angry mob, he shot at them, and tried to jump out a window when he got shot by said angry mob.

Nothing wierd about that at all. If you are in a cult.

mpmcgraw wrote:

pacino wrote:Mormonism is no less weird than general vanilla Christianity. Not sure why it gets this big 'crazy' label. It does kind of rewrite history, though.

I know you hate christians, but you do know how the founder of their religion died right?

He got attacked by an angry mob, he shot at them, and tried to jump out a window when he got shot by said angry mob.

Nothing wierd about that at all. If you are in a cult.

pacino is in that phase of life where everything is relative, leave him alone.

Christians believe a guy who was killed arose 3 days later like it was nothing. It is relative. Someone said earlier to give it time. Mormonism will be a highly respected religion given enough time.

mpmcgraw wrote:I know you hate christians, but you do know how the founder of their religion died right?

He got attacked by an angry mob, he shot at them, and tried to jump out a window when he got shot by said angry mob.

Nothing wierd about that at all. If you are in a cult.

Nothing weird about the history of Catholicism and Protestantism either. At least the killed their leader as opposed to millions and millions of non-believers. BTW, you failed to mention how Josesph Smith violated the mob's rights by having their newspapers banned and burned. He was killed by the mob after jumping out of the jail window after being arrested for violating the first amendment.

Mormons did not kill their leader. I can't remember his name, but he was definitely not killed by Mormons.

momadance wrote:

mpmcgraw wrote:I know you hate christians, but you do know how the founder of their religion died right?

He got attacked by an angry mob, he shot at them, and tried to jump out a window when he got shot by said angry mob.

Nothing wierd about that at all. If you are in a cult.

Nothing weird about the history of Catholicism and Protestantism either. At least the killed their leader as opposed to millions and millions of non-believers. BTW, you failed to mention how Josesph Smith violated the mob's rights by having their newspapers banned and burned. He was killed by the mob after jumping out of the jail window after being arrested for violating the first amendment.

As if that contradicts that this is wierd religion?

mpmcgraw wrote:Mormons did not kill their leader. I can't remember his name, but he was definitely not killed by Mormons.

His was killed by a mob off 200 pissed of Mormons, not one person. William Law was the ringleader and a Morom. He was pissed because Smith was trying to marry his wife.

Yep you are right.

I was remembering it in bits and pieces.

pacino wrote:Christians believe a guy who was killed arose 3 days later like it was nothing. It is relative. Someone said earlier to give it time. Mormonism will be a highly respected religion given enough time.

I agree that time is a factor, but so is impact. It's cool to only focus on the evils of Christians, but we benefit immensely from their accomplishments (like Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists). I don't think LDS has achieved that, unless you count Franklin-Covey. It is the fastest growing religion in the world, from what I understand.

VoxOrion wrote:

pacino wrote:Christians believe a guy who was killed arose 3 days later like it was nothing. It is relative. Someone said earlier to give it time. Mormonism will be a highly respected religion given enough time.

I agree that time is a factor, but so is impact. It's cool to only focus on the evils of Christians, but we benefit immensely from their accomplishments (like Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists). I don't think LDS has achieved that, unless you count Franklin-Covey. It is the fastest growing religion in the world, from what I understand.

What about Steve Young?

Factor in the Osmonds and you got me.

VoxOrion wrote:

pacino wrote:Christians believe a guy who was killed arose 3 days later like it was nothing. It is relative. Someone said earlier to give it time. Mormonism will be a highly respected religion given enough time.

I agree that time is a factor, but so is impact. It's cool to only focus on the evils of Christians, but we benefit immensely from their accomplishments (like Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists). I don't think LDS has achieved that, unless you count Franklin-Covey. It is the fastest growing religion in the world, from what I understand.

Not sure this line of argument holds up. Focusing on the Christians, I guess you could chalk up some of the accomplishments of people like Descartes and Newton to their religion because they (at least sort of) said as much--though it could also be said that for someone like Newton in his time, he could either be a professing Christian or never even get a hearing.

But, say, Edison was a Christian (I think); did his Christianity have anything to do with his accomplishments? Same with Einstein, Freud, and most other "Jewish achievers" who might have identified culturally as Jews but weren't primarily or even secondarily motivated by faith.

That said, my "Cult + Time" formulation did leave something out--as God once told Homer Simpson, 85 percent of new religions fail in their first year. I don't know exactly what that is, though--life relevancy? Mormonism must have something to offer all those new adherents, which could make my comparison to Scientology (the appeal of which seems to have to do with the putatively empty spiritual lives of celebrities) unfair.

jerseyhoya wrote:Romney dropping out and asking his delegates to swing behind McCain. The absurdly small bit of rationale behind Mike Huckabee's bid has disappeared.

A week ago Romney hated McCain. Now he's... flip-flopping.