West Seattle Blog...

WSB Forum » Politics

(53 posts)

Da google bomb for "Mittens" Romney

Started 3 months ago by Ken
Latest reply from redblack

Ken
Member Profile

http://spreadingromney.com/

Posted 3 months ago #
HMC Rich
Member Profile

My five year old loves this type of humor.

Posted 3 months ago #
redblack
Member Profile

did you follow the link, rich? it's not just toilet humor. in fact it's pretty un-funny.

Posted 3 months ago #
Ken
Member Profile

http://searchengineland.com/now-mitt-romney-has-a-santorum-like-bing-google-problem-111061

A discussion of the possible reasons why this is not a classic "google bomb" :)

Posted 3 months ago #
DBP
Member Profile

I'm not sure how this "Google bombing" is any different from Facebook bullying. Yeah, it can be kinda funny if it's directed against someone you happen to hate. But then you think, "Hm. Wonder what I'd feel like if someone did this to me."

People have criticized Rick Santorum for not managing the Dan Savage/pottymouth problem, but I think this is really on Google to manage, not Santorum. Google should automatically downgrade any references to Santorum that aren't strictly related to politics. That way, when you Google "Santorum," you can get some actual information about the guy at the top of the list, and not some nonsense contrived by a pottymouth.

Posted 3 months ago #
redblack
Member Profile

thanks, ken. i just learned that a romney is a type of sheep, too. and that the sreading romney site appears to be hosted in my home town, which is hardly a hotbed of liberalism.

DP: i think google has "safe search," which should filter out the savage love definition of santorum. (i currently have google set to "unsafe search.")

but to your point, maybe some of these politicians should think about the people they might offend before they open their big, stupid mouths about things they don't understand. talkin' 'bout santorum here. he gave offense to a large swath of the population, and, in my opinion, he fully deserved the pie that got thrown back in his face.

as far as willard romney goes, maybe he should have displayed a little more sensitivity to animals by not strapping the family dog to the roof of his car, then driving down the freeway with it.

if i had to guess, i'd say he probably couldn't stomach the thought of the smell of dog shit in his station wagon. and he probably made some untouchable clean the carrier for him when they arrived at their posh family vacationing spot.

i think romney's attitude in general is what's on parade here. to me, he comes across as a disconnected snob.

Posted 3 months ago #
dbsea
Member Profile

I have to question anyone's common sense who travels with a dog on the roof. Seems a bit heartless too, unless he hated that dog.

And who's willing to bet the "I'm Mormon", ie. I'm Normal campaign goes away the second Romney's either out of contention or after the election?

Posted 3 months ago #
DBP
Member Profile

Hm. Good point, dbsea.

But maybe you have it backwards.

Is the "I'm a Mormon" thing an advertisement for Romney, or is the whole Romney candidacy really just an elaborate "product placement" scheme for Mormonism?

(Sorry folks. I couldn't resist.)

Posted 3 months ago #
dhg
Member Profile

I believe the ads are there to bolster Romney's campaign but it also helps out the image so they may keep it up. They were surprised at the bruising they took for supporting Prop 8. Some folks were ready to chase them back to St. Louis. So they are in need of good PR.

Posted 3 months ago #
DBP
Member Profile

Haw. That makes TWO marriage-related issues the Mormons have been on the wrong side of in the last 100 years.

Does anyone remember what the OTHER one was?

What is . . . ?

What is p ________ ?

What is p-p-p ________ ?

Posted 3 months ago #
DBP
Member Profile

p-p-p-p-p-p . . . .

Posted 3 months ago #
miws
Member Profile

Pardo?

Mike

Posted 3 months ago #
Trick
Member Profile

Grandpa Gaskell Romney from Mexico for $200

Posted 3 months ago #
DBP
Member Profile

Polygamy, sillies.

M-m-maybe M-M-M-Mormons are still p-pissed about p-p-polygamy being p-p-p-prohibited.

Th-that's why they're a-g-g-g-gainst g-g-g-gay m-m-marriage.

[d-d-d-darn k-k-k-keyboard]

Posted 3 months ago #
JanS
Member Profile

well, I suppose then if they were for gay marriage, and polygamy still existed, then maybe, just maybe they could have men and women and women and men in one big party ;-)

Posted 3 months ago #
Trick
Member Profile

DBP,
That was my indirect way of answering your question. It was said that Mitt's Grandfather moved to Mexico to avoid the laws against Polygamy here in the U.S.

I really wanted that toaster :)

Posted 3 months ago #
JoB
Member Profile

trick..

i think that answer was worth a toaster upgrade
wide enough to toast bagels too

Posted 3 months ago #
DBP
Member Profile

well, I suppose then if they were for gay marriage, and polygamy still existed, then maybe, just maybe they could have men and women and women and men in one big party ;-)

Jan, that is the most inclusive, life-affirming, sex-positive message that's ever been uttered in this forum. Someday there's going to be a statue of you in a local park. And you know what? It makes me really MAD to think of pigeons crapping all over it.

Trick . . . now I know why they call you "Trick." Bastard.

[kidding]

But hey, I'll give you the $200 on this.

************************************************************************************

Please note: I'm going to be talking about a lot about Mormon theology soon. Only I'm going to be doing it very respectfully, see, because:

1) I LIKE Mormons. They're nice people.

2) Even if I didn't like Mormons, it's important to be respectful to them, because . . .

Well . . . just because.

Posted 3 months ago #
anonyme
Member Profile

There's an ad I've been dying to see/make, and I'm surprised nobody has done it yet. Unfortunately, I don't know how to insert pictures in posts either. But, splashed across the side of a Metro bus, I'd like to see a big color photo of Josh Powell with the caption "I'm a Mormon".

Posted 3 months ago #
Ken
Member Profile

Google knows all....

http://famousmormons.net/infamous.html

Ted Bundy and D.B.Cooper and Josh Powell in a photo triptych with the caption "I'm a Mormon".

I am to lazy to do it though. Besides I like the mormons I know. They still get teased about the magic underwear and the magic glasses and the missing magic tablets...

Posted 3 months ago #
WSB
Member Profile

I've been flagged on this thread.

We do not have a rule that prohibits criticism of faith - largely because your faith is a matter of choice, unlike your gender, sexual orientation, or size. And yet religious intolerance/persecution is no less ugly.

Please remember the rule of criticize the comment, not the commenter. Criticize (or support, for that matter) the belief or teaching, but not the person. Would you all be comfortable if, say, "Jew" was substituted for the "Mormon" references above? Or "Catholic"? Are we feeling it's OK to ridicule those who belong to a smaller, newer faith? To the last point, if your faith (or lack of it) is shared by a killer, do you expect to be tarred with that brush? - TR

Posted 3 months ago #
Under Achiever
Member Profile

I am saddened to think my West Seattle neighbors think that I am a moron or less a full person than they are simply because of my chosen religious faith.

All in good fun, right? Thanks for your enlightened tolerance of my lifestyle.

Posted 3 months ago #
roundthesound
Member Profile

Charlie, Braden, and Susan Powell were Mormons too. How could you be so insensitive?

Posted 3 months ago #
DBP
Member Profile

Magic underwear, magic glasses, magic tablets...

Silly as it sounds, these things are really at the heart of the matter.

With its recent advertising blitz, the Mormon church is proclaiming: Hey, America! We're just like the rest of you! —Which is essentially true. As people, Mormons are just like everyone else, only with 1950s hairdos.

But beware, 'cuz the other message they're slipping in there, in between the lines, is: Hey America! Our religious beliefs are just like yours, too. Totally vanilla. Mainstream. No worries.

That part of the message, I would take issue with. Mos def.

Of course, many religions contain at least a few ideas that, taken by themselves, would seem odd to a reasonable person. For example, until recently Roman Catholic doctrine held that the Pope was infallible and that whatever he said simply HAD to be true, even if he was contradicting himself.

Ridiculous, right? Of course it is.

But here's the thing . . . THE DIFFERENCE between the Mormon Church and the Roman Catholic Church is that most modern Catholics never believed that the Pope was infallible in the first place, whereas modern Mormons absolutely DO believe in the magic tablet story. Yesirree Bob.

So then you have to ask: Well, Mitt, if you can fall for a story about golden tablets, then what else could you fall for?

—Don't believe what I'm telling you about how seriously Mormons take their doctrine? Just ask one of them; they're not hard to find.

Just look for the little black ties and bicycles. Coming soon, to a neighborhood near you.

**************************************************************************************

Under Achiever, do you believe these comments of mine to be intolerant? If so, I'm truly sorry. But just so you know, you're probably gonna hear a lot worse from other quarters in the days to come. Especially if Mitt gets the nomination. So be prepared.

Posted 3 months ago #
carter
Member Profile

I sure know a helluva lot of Evangelicals that consider Mormonism a cult and fear seeing it anywhere the White House. Censorship of any kind is unconstitutional and that includes search engines. Hypocrites abound in both sides of the political spectrum. And I dismiss those in a discussion that don't acknowledge that.

Posted 3 months ago #
Ken
Member Profile

As a Pastafarian, I am pretty sure one of the main goals of my listed religion of choice is to ridicule the origins and doctrine of ALL faiths including my own.

However, after a couple of IPU's I sometimes become a noncognitivist.

Posted 3 months ago #
miws
Member Profile

Ken, a penne for your thoughts...

Mike

Posted 3 months ago #
anonyme
Member Profile

I'm with you, Ken. Especially the part about noncognitivism.

The stats are pretty clear on the correlation between violence and religion. Neither the violence inherent in Mormon dogma, nor the recent glitzy, big money Mormon media campaign is exempt from criticism. In fact, all religion deserves more scrutiny and less protection; a free-thinking society is a safer one.

Posted 3 months ago #
JoB
Member Profile

i am not ok with all of the religion bashing in general and definately not ok with DBPs latest posts "exposing" Mormons.

i am most unsettled by this..

"But beware, 'cuz the other message they're slipping in there, in between the lines, is: Hey America! Our religious beliefs are just like yours, too. Totally vanilla. Mainstream. No worries.

That part of the message, I would take issue with. Mos def."

I agree completely that the Mormon religion is not like the Catholic Religion or that of most Protestants, or Muslims or Hindus or Buddhists or Rastafarians for that matter...

but i would argue that it simply doesn't matter how outlandish anyone may think their religious beliefs are...

As long as exercising their religious freedom isn't breaking laws or limiting my liberty... they can dance naked in the moonlight for all i care...

Freedom of religion was guaranteed in our constitution for a reason...

and although the religious right has been making a bad joke of the concepts of religious freedom lately,
that doesn't mean that basic tolerance of other people's religious beliefs isn't worth fighting for.

DBP... you are old enough to have lived through the great controversy of our first Catholic President.

THEY weren't like us either... then.

Posted 3 months ago #
JoB
Member Profile

Athiests and Agnostics

I affirm your right to question..
or to disbelieve entirely

what i don't understand is why you don't grant me the same courtesy

simply because i believe...

Posted 3 months ago #
anonyme
Member Profile

Who has denied you the right to question? Or are you suggesting that atheists and agnostics should only question in silence, lest believers be offended?

Freedom FROM religion is also a right worth fighting for. Atheists have been denied both rights and courtesy for a very, very long time. And yet believers become highly indignant at the very thought that the table just might turn on them. No act, no idea, no dogma is beyond questioning. To suggest otherwise is merely an indication that more scrutiny is justified.

Posted 3 months ago #
JanS
Member Profile

my two cents...your religious or non-religious beliefs are personal to you...there should be no discussion...keep it to yourself, and leave my beliefs alone. Many of us don't want to hear about it. But that's my personal belief.

I, too, am a bit uncomfortable with what DBP has posted. Even if it's all in fun. Magic whatever...it's not our place to call them on it on here. In a private conversation with a friend? Have at it. But not here. Besides..wanna talk magic? Take communion in the Catholic church...actually believing that a little wafer and some cheap sweet wine ( I know, I've tasted) are converted to the body and blood of someone? talk about magic..so..maybe we need to just try to be a little more tolerant of each other.

Now..the fact that Mitt would strap his dog in a crate to the top of his car for a long trip? We could talk about that...

Posted 3 months ago #
DBP
Member Profile

Thank you, anonyme (#31). My thoughts prezactly.

*************************************************************************************

Jo said:

As long as exercising their religious freedom isn't breaking laws or limiting my liberty... they can dance naked in the moonlight for all i care...

OK. You can go ahead and vote for the "Dancing Naked in the Moonlight" candidate for President, if you want. I'll pass.

DBP... you are old enough to have lived through the great controversy of our first Catholic President.

—Well, I was just a few months old at the time, but I do recall having a rather traumatic infancy. Perhaps the Catholic Church was behind that after all.

Anyway Jo, please re-read my point about the practical differences between modern Catholics and modern Mormons. We didn't have to worry about Kennedy's so-called Catholicism precisely because he wasn't a devout Catholic and we knew it. (Boy, did we know it.)

On other hand, Mitt Romney IS a devout Mormon and takes his religion very seriously. Therefore, we SHOULD be paying very close attention to what Romney believes about things like science and history. And that means scrutinizing Mormon theology, because Mormon theology has a lot to say about these things.

Do you have any idea what Mormons believe in regard to the origins of Native Americans, for example? Read up on it and tell me you STILL think this isn't politically relevant . . .

–David

Posted 3 months ago #
bettytheyeti
Member Profile

Interesting. As long as religious affiliates tamper in "man's" laws in the name of their gods law, I am going to call them out on it. Get in between my Dr.'s RX at the pharmacy at the same time crying out to continue to be tax exempt, yup I'm going to call you on that too. Pastafarian's unite! Penne for your thoughts, good one Mike Miws.

Posted 3 months ago #
Ken
Member Profile

Voters of the day DID NOT have any idea of JFK not being a committed catholic. Most Catholics were viewed with suspicion by their more numerous protestant neighbors, especially in the south where the Scots-Irish and French protestants had fled their Catholic dominated homelands in the previous 3 centuries. The Democratic party in the South was not particularly liberal and at its core was mostly those who became Republicans after 1964.

Video and transcript
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16920600

Posted 3 months ago #
JanS
Member Profile

so, DBP, if a candidate is an avowed athiest, should we be skeptical of how and what they might do as president, considering that we are now "one nation under God"? Or do you think that someone who is avowed athiest would never even make it that far? Many discussions are had about the spirituality of whoever runs for prez..that "faith" has something to do white what kind of person and leader they will be. If we , as you say , should question Mormon beliefs, should we delve deeply into others beliefs, too? Does it have any bearing on anything?

Posted 3 months ago #
anonyme
Member Profile

That WAS a zinger, Mike...!

And Jan, I agree with you that what Mitt did to that poor dog is more relevant than his religion.

Posted 3 months ago #
cwit
Member Profile

JanS - If only everyone followed your 2 cents and kept their religious beliefs to themselves.

But from what I've seen - politicians (and people in general) love to push their religious beliefs on us via the laws and policies they get behind.

I mean, isn't 'spreading the WORD' a directive of a lot of religions? Or maybe it's just a Christian thing - since that's what I've been most exposed to, whether I like it or not. In fact, that's the definition of EVANGELISM.

So as long as presidents and presidential nominees can espouse their religion, they should be smart enough to know that they can be criticized for it.

And as long as DBP doesn't go over the line on any of the forum rules, I would think he'd be free to express it. And people are free to be offended by it or agree with it.

Posted 3 months ago #
DBP
Member Profile

Jan, I agree with your line of thinking. Atheist candidates shouldn't get a free ride any more than believers should. Voters SHOULD question atheists about their ethical system. I have noooo problem with that.

As for me, even though I'm a believer, I'd be delighted to vote for an honest atheist over a religious candidate who arrogantly thinks his faith gives him some kind of moral advantage.

As to the question of a candidate's specific religious beliefs, you BET it matters. Let me give you a short list of issues that have been directly impacted by religious doctrine over the years:

¶ Slavery (churches North and South justified it using Biblical precedent)

¶ Prohibition

¶ Teaching of evolution and earth sciences in public schools

¶ Sex education

¶ Prayer in school

¶ Sodomy laws

¶ Contraception/abortion

¶ Gays in the military

¶ Religious proselytizing in the military

¶ Religious proselytizing in conquered nations (e.g., China, Japan, Iraq)

¶ Prayer breakfasts at the White House

¶ Gay marriage

¶ Stem-cell research

Whew! Had enough? Political decisions on all of the above issues were at some point or other framed in terms of religious doctrine.

You bet it's important.

Posted 3 months ago #
JoB
Member Profile

anonyme..

"Who has denied you the right to question? Or are you suggesting that atheists and agnostics should only question in silence, lest believers be offended?"

i have no problem with questioning.
what i have a problem with is name calling.
and it's pretty rampant here.

I agree that there have been many abuses perpetrated in the name of "the" church..

I agree completely that politics and religion make poor bedfellows...

and i am as incensed as you are that the religious right has made religion a calling point in our elections..

but using that as an excuse to ridicule individuals who choose to believe is nothing more than name calling of the worst kind.

Posted 3 months ago #
JoB
Member Profile

DBP..

"We didn't have to worry about Kennedy's so-called Catholicism precisely because he wasn't a devout Catholic and we knew it."

No.. you kids knew it by the time you were old enough to realize there had been a president who was assassinated.

At the time, we knew no such thing.

You should go back and read some of the current coverage of that political race. The cartoons alone with the prominently featured evil looking pope tell the tale.

Posted 3 months ago #
JoB
Member Profile

DBP..

Romney's religion isn't the most important thing about him as a candidate...

His secular priorities are.

i have no intention of being sidetracked by the Mormon question when there are far more important issues that need airtime.

BTW.. if i had to choose...
i would choose Romney the Mormon over Santorum the Christian...

thank God i have another option.

Posted 3 months ago #
anonyme
Member Profile

Still confused. I just re-read most of the above posts, and can't find an example of rampant "name calling" or of believers being "ridiculed". Please specify which comment(s) you find so offensive.

DBP, good list. I would add attitudes toward women to the list, as in the expectation that women should hold subservient roles at all levels in society. As long as women are regarded as brood animals by male-identified "Gods" we will not be able to address the serious issue of world overpopulation and poverty.

I also wonder if the American political model in regard to religion has not become outdated. By that I mean the unchallenged belief that a presidential candidate MUST adopt a certain level of religious posturing in order to be elected, and must also pander to bible belt constituencies in the south. The demographics of religion are undergoing a sea change in this country. I suspect that the threat of our nation becoming a theocracy has mobilized a lot of people to reconsider the church vs. state issue, as well as to question their own beliefs - or lack thereof.

Posted 3 months ago #
DBP
Member Profile

but using [religion] as an excuse to ridicule individuals who choose to believe is nothing more than name calling of the worst kind.

—Jo, are you still way back at post #1 on this? The rest of us moved on a long time ago. Now we're talking about religious influence on politics generally. Do you want to join that discussion or not?

You should go back and read some of the current coverage of [the Kennedy-Nixon] race. The cartoons alone with the prominently featured evil looking pope tell the tale.

–No, Jo. Actually, I think you should go back and read some of the coverage.

Whether individuals were personally criticising Kennedy for being a Catholic is not at issue. What's at issue is whether American voters believed Kennedy's religion mattered in politics. Clearly, most voters believed Kennedy's religion did NOT matter even before the voting commenced. Or they wouldn't have voted him in. Right?

Now then, how did Americans know that Kennedy's religion didn't matter? Because he had told them it didn't! That's how.

Here's an excerpt from a speech Kennedy made right before he was elected:

But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected President, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured--perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again--not what kind of church I believe in, for that should be important only to me--but what kind of America I believe in.

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute--where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote--where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference--and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

Source: http://tinyurl.com/JFK-and-the-Church

—So you see, even BEFORE the election, Kennedy had taken pains to assert that, as President, he would not be taking orders from the (officially infallible) Pope. Interestingly, this speech alone could have gotten JFK excommunicated; by denying the absolute authority of the Pope and the Church, he was openly declaring his heresy.

In any case, my point is that even before the election, voters knew Kennedy wasn't a devout Catholic. At least, not in the sense of obedience to the Church. So you're clearly wrong on that.

************************************************************************************

But this brings up another question and that is: What about now? After 52 years, do we finally live in the kind of secular America Kennedy was dreaming about in his speech?

I would say no.

Do we live in a country where "no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote"?

—Oh, please!! Don't make me laugh.

¶ In fact, we still do live in a country where ministers and priests tell their parishioners how to vote all the time!

¶ In fact, we do live in a country where one church just got done funding a ballot measure to keep gay people from getting married, solely on the grounds that gay marriage was a sin according to that church's tenets.

¶ And in fact, we do live in a country where one of the (likely) Presidential contenders belongs to the same church that funded that ballot measure.

—And you're gonna sit there and tell me that we shouldn't even be discussing this candidate's religion . . . because it's some kind of personal insult to that candidate?

C'mon Jo!!! What planet are you living on?

This discussion is not about whether candidates believe in God or not. This discussion is about whether a candidate's religion would have a bearing on his decisions as President. And in Romney's case the answer is: ab-so-LUTE-ly!

Posted 3 months ago #
DBP
Member Profile

When I hear Mitt Romney say publicly that he, too, thinks the "separation of Church and State is absolute" and that the Mormon Church shouldn't be involved in politics . . . I'll forget that he's a Mormon.

When I hear Mitt Romney say publicly that, when it comes down to a question of science vs. religious doctrine, he's gonna go with science every time, I'll take him as seriously as I would take a non-religious candidate.

Until then, forget it.

Posted 3 months ago #
waynster
Member Profile

Thing is no candidate should be questioned nor persecuted on their religious beliefs nor should it be part of the ability to lead. Romney is no kennedy.... santorm is no kennedy... Obama is not muslum... so why bring in religon? The religous right has made it so on the republican party side... if your not a God fearing down to earth religous zelot you can't be president....sad seeing how the fore fathers of this country wanted separation of church and state for this reason that no religious organization would dominate nor govern based on faith....

Posted 3 months ago #
JanS
Member Profile

and then we have Rick Santorum...who seems to think that his brand of Christianity is better than someone else's. So where does this "religion is important" thing stop?

http://news.yahoo.com/rick-santorum-questions-obamas-christian-values-173855929.html

Posted 3 months ago #
JoB
Member Profile

anonyme..

no you didn't name call in this topic..
and i am not going to bother to go back to look to see if you are one of those who has questioned the sanity of anyone who would believe.. or called us stupid.. or...

but you did use the acts of a limited few to define the majority of those who choose belief

you linked violence and religion as a known fact...
as though religion was the cause for violence
and not the rationalization by some for their violent behavior.

Nice trick that... which totally ignores the fact that the connection between poverty and violence or guns and violence or alcohol and violence or ... are far more compelling.

the number of people who commit violence in the name of their religion is miniscule in comparison to the number of people who profess a religion.

but that wouldn't make a good story would it?

DBP...

Your insight into what the voters were thinking when they elected Kennedy is stunning...

they elected him so it didn't matter?

and will that be the epitaph to this election?
they elected him so it didn't matter?

as for that story you told about the voters "knowing" Kennedy wasn't obedient to his pope...
the mere fact that you would repeat that proves that the myth that Kennedy would be a tool of the pope if elected because he was a Catholic did matter at the time.

gotta love revisionist history
but it doesn't go down so well with those of us who actually lived it.

Posted 3 months ago #
DBP
Member Profile

You know, the Catholic Church has a long history of meddling in politics, so I think American voters were quite right to wonder whether candidate Kennedy would let his decisions as President be influenced by the Pope. And that is why he (quite rightly) made that speech declaring himself to be a freethinker.

(Good form, Kennedy.)

If only Romney would make the same speech as Kennedy, my mind would be at ease.

Again, here are the main points I'd like Romney to hit . . .

1) I, Mitt Romney, believe in the absolute separation of church and state.

2) As President, I won't be influenced by the Mormon church or Mormon doctrine in ANY of my decisions.

3) In all questions of science vs. faith, I will side with science.

Until Romney clarifies this for us, I'm going to be keeping a sharp eye on his religious beliefs.

Same goes for you, Mr. Santorum.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMaScSw8F54

Posted 3 months ago #
DBP
Member Profile

You know what I find particularly cynical about "Christian" politicians? It's how they wear their religious affiliation on their sleeve to get votes, but then, if you ask for details, they get all defensive, like it's none of your damn business what church they go to.

And I'm like: Huh!? How do you get away with that?

You can bet your bottom $ that Romney and Santorum are counting on snagging huge chunks of the Bible-belt vote just because they're fundamentalist Christians. Yet if a journalist were to ask them a really tough question about their religion in a public forum, that would be considered prying.

Posted 3 months ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.

All contents copyright 2012, A Drink of Water and a Story Interactive. Here's how to contact us.
No photo reuse without permission.
Entries and comments feeds. ^Top^