Some more thoughts on Mitt’s religious bullshit…
Posted on December 13, 2007
by: Dr. Jerome Pestlebottom
Not to be coarse, and I do not want to alienate anyone, but Billo tries to make this woman look like her viewpoint isn’t valid or historically accurate, and it is both valid and historically accurate…
.
Comments
3 Responses to “Some more thoughts on Mitt’s religious bullshit…”
Leave a Reply
This lady is CRAZY. One guy or person representing a whole country. You really think that in the United States there could ever be one person who had the ideals of a majority of the people?
Girl you got problems
Well, I don’t think that was the viewpoint she wanted you to take away from that… Billo does a great job (as usual) cutting people off and putting words in their mouth…
The president of the US shouldn’t define Americans as being believers in a higher power.. He can define himself as that… he can even define his family and friends as that… But when he defines “Americans” as being under god (in a speech that was combed over multiple times by multiple writers) that makes him seem to dismiss non-believers outright…
He doesn’t need to have everyones ideals to run this country, it was more about some of the phrasing in his speech…
“Americans believe our liberty is a gift from god”
“Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.”
Freedom does not require religion to exist and religion doesn’t require freedom to exist… It was pointless drivel but the phrasing of some of that stuff creeped me out, the same way Huck-the-Fuck does when he speaks…
If you want to “open the windows of (your) soul” look up at the night sky and just try to wrap your head around how big it all is… Let god slip in there or not, that immensity will talk to your soul more than reading some words on a page or a speech by a plastic hack…
Anyone else care to add?
Rob, in case it isn’t obvious I’d like to point out that Dr. Jerome is different from me (B-Jar).
If Romney had gotten up there and said, “We are a nation of white people. We were founded upon Caucasian principles and white culture has had a profound influence upon our history,” how would you have felt about his speech? Then consider the O’Reilly counterargument: “Well, he can’t summarize every little detail of every segment of our diverse population, and anyway, it’s true: white people did establish the American government.”
The point is this: Romney doesn’t need to give a speech in which he says, “America is entirely comprised of ____ .” Your point, which is absolutely true, is that we are a diverse nation, right? So how can a presidential candidate make an assertion declaring otherwise and still be considered legitimate?