If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ABC)   Utah lawmakers pass bill mandating that at least two members of the state's five member liquor commission be consumers of alcohol, which also means they can't be members of LDS. Religious intolerance?   (abcnews.go.com) divider line 177
    More: Interesting, Utah, religious intolerance, Alcohol law, tourism industry, commissioners  
•       •       •

3261 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Feb 2012 at 12:29 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



177 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-02-24 08:52:48 PM
Utah lawmakers passed a bill out of committee on Friday mandating that at least two members of the state's liquor commission be consumers of alcohol, a requirement that's designed to provide a stronger voice for responsible adult drinkers in a state dominated by teetotaling Mormons.

sounds about right.
 
2012-02-24 08:56:30 PM
heh...

There's plenty of Jack Mormons about
 
2012-02-24 09:01:59 PM
Keep Mormons away from your liquor. Trust me.
 
2012-02-24 09:05:11 PM
Utah is going 1 step forward and 2 back. They do this and then they pass legislation stating the only sex ed taught in school is abstinence.
 
2012-02-24 09:11:21 PM

ecmoRandomNumbers: Keep Mormons away from your liquor. Trust me.


Only if there isn't a second Mormon nearby.
 
2012-02-24 09:15:00 PM
I don't see how the ability to drink would have any bearing on heading up such a commission. It's be like saying you need at least five pedophiles on a child sex ring investigative committee. Or at least one Roman Catholic Priest.
 
2012-02-24 09:15:11 PM
I would call that a legitimate qualification for the position, elected, appointed, or otherwise. And I'm an almost-phd in public admin, so I'm not just saying that because I love beer.
 
2012-02-24 09:21:06 PM

Darth_Lukecash: I don't see how the ability to drink would have any bearing on heading up such a commission.


You don't want someone who's got some experience in utilities on your Public Service Commission?

Don't want someone with medical training on your state's Medical Board?

Don't want someone with knowledge of hairdressing/nail care and the related sanitation and safety issues to be in charge of your state Board of Cosmetology?

You wouldn't want someone who's never had a drink in their life to be in charge of your Alcoholic Beverage Control board either, then.
 
2012-02-24 09:26:33 PM

melopene: I would call that a legitimate qualification for the position, elected, appointed, or otherwise. And I'm an almost-phd in public admin, so I'm not just saying that because I love beer.


So, is that like a GED in law?

//M.D., MBA.
 
2012-02-24 09:28:53 PM
Mormons are stupid stupid stupid people. I hate living in utah, this place looks like Iran with white people.
I would rather vote for newt, rick, or any bush over that lying mormon R-money. The crap mormons do and believe in should be exposed to the entire world and in the way the mormon church wants it to be.

They are original scientologists.
Read under the banner of heaven. Until 9/11 their massacre was the biggest in the name of a religion.
 
2012-02-24 09:34:44 PM

melopene: Darth_Lukecash: I don't see how the ability to drink would have any bearing on heading up such a commission.

You don't want someone who's got some experience in utilities on your Public Service Commission?

Don't want someone with medical training on your state's Medical Board?

Don't want someone with knowledge of hairdressing/nail care and the related sanitation and safety issues to be in charge of your state Board of Cosmetology?

You wouldn't want someone who's never had a drink in their life to be in charge of your Alcoholic Beverage Control board either, then.


There's a difference between having experience working in a field and being a recipient/user of said field.

What about a person who distributes alcohol, but doesn't drink himself? Or works in a brewery, but doesn't like beer? Does a Psychiatrist have to be crazy to work in mental health?
 
2012-02-24 09:43:46 PM
They couldn't even muster Three-Fifths.
 
2012-02-24 09:56:07 PM
Religious intolerance?/i>

No. Next question
 
2012-02-24 10:09:26 PM

cameroncrazy1984: ecmoRandomNumbers: Keep Mormons away from your liquor. Trust me.

Only if there isn't a second Mormon nearby.


I was going to say something based on that joke.
 
2012-02-24 10:12:50 PM

Darth_Lukecash: Does a Psychiatrist have to be crazy to work in mental health?


They do have to be trained experts, but that said, many people who study psychology (apart from management and organizational studies) and psychiatry do so because they have some sort of issue they wish to better understand.

Would you prefer that the law required that they be distillers/brewers/vintners? I don't know of anyone who does those things who don't sample their own product. Not that I *technically* know, since brewing's still illegal in my state. Mumblegrumblebiatchpissmoan..
 
2012-02-24 10:19:04 PM

slc11082: Read under the banner of heaven. Until 9/11 their massacre was the biggest in the name of a religion.


You sound like you are on a crusade.
 
2012-02-24 10:25:50 PM

Peter von Nostrand: Religious intolerance?/i>

No. Next question


Seconded, although I could see some extremely devout Mormons still being put out that liquor is legal in the first place. Utah state law prevents individual counties from exercising control over liquor laws, probably for that very reason.

Still, do Mormons have to drink liquor? No. Do they have to pay for liquor? No. No religious intolerance.
 
2012-02-24 10:32:31 PM

cameroncrazy1984: ecmoRandomNumbers: Keep Mormons away from your liquor. Trust me.

Only if there isn't a second Mormon nearby.


SRSLY. They're as bad as Baptists.
 
2012-02-24 10:44:05 PM

melopene: Darth_Lukecash: I don't see how the ability to drink would have any bearing on heading up such a commission.

You don't want someone who's got some experience in utilities on your Public Service Commission?

Don't want someone with medical training on your state's Medical Board?

Don't want someone with knowledge of hairdressing/nail care and the related sanitation and safety issues to be in charge of your state Board of Cosmetology?

You wouldn't want someone who's never had a drink in their life to be in charge of your Alcoholic Beverage Control board either, then.


Actually, this is usually the case and that's the problem. It tends to produce cartels and overwhelming bureaucracy for new entrants
 
2012-02-24 10:54:06 PM

ArkAngel: Actually, this is usually the case and that's the problem. It tends to produce cartels and overwhelming bureaucracy for new entrants


At my last haircut, my hairdresser spoke in overwhelming support of the need for professionalization of the state regulatory agency. This doesn't mean that you need career people (which would lead to the cartelization you mentioned), it means that the people in charge of regulations should know WTF they're talking about.

There's a reason that I have to look carefully at the practices of the salons where I get a pedicure. The only one I'll go to anymore takes their freshly autoclaved stuff straight out of a sealed package before use, it doesn't come out of a drawer or a jar of barbicide that hasn't had the liquid swapped out for months.

A libertarian idealogue in charge of such an agency would simply say, 'Who the hell cares? Let them do what they want! Let the market decide!' as women statewide ended up with horrific fungal infections.

Laurence Lynn wrote an excellent book in the 90's about the field of public administration and the idea of it as art and science. My personal view is that it's a balancing act, but in the case of regulatory agencies such as these, it's much more a science than art.
 
2012-02-24 11:08:43 PM
Send them to Target. Have them buy some rubbing alcohol for electronics cleaning. There. Now they're alcohol consumers.
 
2012-02-24 11:16:41 PM

ArkAngel: melopene: Darth_Lukecash: I don't see how the ability to drink would have any bearing on heading up such a commission.

You don't want someone who's got some experience in utilities on your Public Service Commission?

Don't want someone with medical training on your state's Medical Board?

Don't want someone with knowledge of hairdressing/nail care and the related sanitation and safety issues to be in charge of your state Board of Cosmetology?

You wouldn't want someone who's never had a drink in their life to be in charge of your Alcoholic Beverage Control board either, then.

Actually, this is usually the case and that's the problem. It tends to produce cartels and overwhelming bureaucracy for new entrants


Are you saying that it's bad for hair stylists and those in relate professions to have to learn stuff about their profession?
 
2012-02-24 11:36:40 PM

teto85: melopene: I would call that a legitimate qualification for the position, elected, appointed, or otherwise. And I'm an almost-phd in public admin, so I'm not just saying that because I love beer.

So, is that like a GED in law?

//M.D., MBA.


Ah. Two master's degrees.

/ducks
//fends off attacks with framed Ph.D.
 
2012-02-24 11:42:43 PM

slc11082: Read under the banner of heaven. Until 9/11 their massacre was the biggest in the name of a religion.


That's not even remotely true. Are you Ron Burgundy?
 
2012-02-24 11:56:31 PM
Call up any restaurant in Utah and order antipasto.

I triple dog dare you.

/those people are uncivilized
 
2012-02-25 12:04:51 AM

melopene: ArkAngel: Actually, this is usually the case and that's the problem. It tends to produce cartels and overwhelming bureaucracy for new entrants

At my last haircut, my hairdresser spoke in overwhelming support of the need for professionalization of the state regulatory agency. This doesn't mean that you need career people (which would lead to the cartelization you mentioned), it means that the people in charge of regulations should know WTF they're talking about.


The problem is trying to find someone with both the knowledge and the time/desire. It leads to only established owners being there.

gimmegimme: ArkAngel: melopene: Darth_Lukecash: I don't see how the ability to drink would have any bearing on heading up such a commission.

You don't want someone who's got some experience in utilities on your Public Service Commission?

Don't want someone with medical training on your state's Medical Board?

Don't want someone with knowledge of hairdressing/nail care and the related sanitation and safety issues to be in charge of your state Board of Cosmetology?

You wouldn't want someone who's never had a drink in their life to be in charge of your Alcoholic Beverage Control board either, then.

Actually, this is usually the case and that's the problem. It tends to produce cartels and overwhelming bureaucracy for new entrants

Are you saying that it's bad for hair stylists and those in relate professions to have to learn stuff about their profession?


Not really. But immovable bureaucracy is not necessary. Example: Jestina Clayton, an African immigrant in Utah, started a hair-braiding business in her home. A competitor complained to the state cosmetology board, which threatened her with $2,000 a day fines for practicing without a license. To get such a license, she would need to attend 2,000 hours of beauty classes - more schooling than the state required for armed security guards, mortgage loan originators, real estate sales agents, EMTs and lawyers combined. To top it off, none of these classes taught African braiding and she didn't do anything else.

I personally see no point in government regulation of something as lowly as cosmetology. I go to a barber. If that barber screws up or doesn't do what I wanted and refuses to fix it then I go somewhere else. It wouldn't matter to me if they had a license or went to school for it if they can get the job done for the right price.
 
2012-02-25 12:06:38 AM

ArkAngel: melopene: ArkAngel: Actually, this is usually the case and that's the problem. It tends to produce cartels and overwhelming bureaucracy for new entrants

At my last haircut, my hairdresser spoke in overwhelming support of the need for professionalization of the state regulatory agency. This doesn't mean that you need career people (which would lead to the cartelization you mentioned), it means that the people in charge of regulations should know WTF they're talking about.

The problem is trying to find someone with both the knowledge and the time/desire. It leads to only established owners being there.

gimmegimme: ArkAngel: melopene: Darth_Lukecash: I don't see how the ability to drink would have any bearing on heading up such a commission.

You don't want someone who's got some experience in utilities on your Public Service Commission?

Don't want someone with medical training on your state's Medical Board?

Don't want someone with knowledge of hairdressing/nail care and the related sanitation and safety issues to be in charge of your state Board of Cosmetology?

You wouldn't want someone who's never had a drink in their life to be in charge of your Alcoholic Beverage Control board either, then.

Actually, this is usually the case and that's the problem. It tends to produce cartels and overwhelming bureaucracy for new entrants

Are you saying that it's bad for hair stylists and those in relate professions to have to learn stuff about their profession?

Not really. But immovable bureaucracy is not necessary. Example: Jestina Clayton, an African immigrant in Utah, started a hair-braiding business in her home. A competitor complained to the state cosmetology board, which threatened her with $2,000 a day fines for practicing without a license. To get such a license, she would need to attend 2,000 hours of beauty classes - more schooling than the state required for armed security guards, mortgage loan originators, real estate sales agents, EMTs and lawyers combined. T ...


Perhaps you should look up what one learns in hair school. (Hint: it's more than how to do a buzzcut.)
 
2012-02-25 12:23:15 AM

slc11082: Until 9/11 their massacre was the biggest in the name of a religion.


learn some farking world history.
 
2012-02-25 12:27:15 AM

what_now: slc11082: Until 9/11 their massacre was the biggest in the name of a religion.

learn some farking world history.


As a college freshman, I agree with slc11082. Nothing notable happened before the year 2000 and none of it happened outside the United States.
 
2012-02-25 12:30:38 AM

ArkAngel: To top it off, none of these classes taught African braiding and she didn't do anything else.

I personally see no point in government regulation of something as lowly as cosmetology. I go to a barber. If that barber screws up or doesn't do what I wanted and refuses to fix it then I go somewhere else. It wouldn't matter to me if they had a license or went to school for it if they can get the job done for the right price.


No, African braiding wasn't taught, but proper sanitation and identifying health issues of concern related to a customer's scalp and hair were.

Boards of Cosmetology don't exist because they're a mechanism to complain if you get a haircut you don't like. They exist to prevent you from getting lice, fungal infections, and other nasty things. These boards usually also cover aesteticians, who are the nice ladies who give you facials and put crazy mixtures of stuff on your skin. Wouldn't it be nice for them to have a basic understanding of scalp and facial dermatology before just pouring on a mixture of cucumber, oatmeal, alcohol, peroxide, and some crappy lotion from the drug store, and to be responsible to some kind of authority when they make all the skin on your face peel off?
 
2012-02-25 12:31:31 AM

gimmegimme: ArkAngel: melopene: ArkAngel: Actually, this is usually the case and that's the problem. It tends to produce cartels and overwhelming bureaucracy for new entrants

At my last haircut, my hairdresser spoke in overwhelming support of the need for professionalization of the state regulatory agency. This doesn't mean that you need career people (which would lead to the cartelization you mentioned), it means that the people in charge of regulations should know WTF they're talking about.

The problem is trying to find someone with both the knowledge and the time/desire. It leads to only established owners being there.

gimmegimme: ArkAngel: melopene: Darth_Lukecash: I don't see how the ability to drink would have any bearing on heading up such a commission.

You don't want someone who's got some experience in utilities on your Public Service Commission?

Don't want someone with medical training on your state's Medical Board?

Don't want someone with knowledge of hairdressing/nail care and the related sanitation and safety issues to be in charge of your state Board of Cosmetology?

You wouldn't want someone who's never had a drink in their life to be in charge of your Alcoholic Beverage Control board either, then.

Actually, this is usually the case and that's the problem. It tends to produce cartels and overwhelming bureaucracy for new entrants

Are you saying that it's bad for hair stylists and those in relate professions to have to learn stuff about their profession?

Not really. But immovable bureaucracy is not necessary. Example: Jestina Clayton, an African immigrant in Utah, started a hair-braiding business in her home. A competitor complained to the state cosmetology board, which threatened her with $2,000 a day fines for practicing without a license. To get such a license, she would need to attend 2,000 hours of beauty classes - more schooling than the state required for armed security guards, mortgage loan originators, real estate sales agents, EMTs and lawyers c ...


I do know. My ex went to one for a while. My point is that it doesn't matter if you have the schooling if you can still do the job. My friend Tim got a business degree. He teaches math (including calculus). If you can show that you are effective without a specified degree, why force someone to get it?
 
2012-02-25 12:32:34 AM

ArkAngel: gimmegimme: ArkAngel: melopene: ArkAngel: Actually, this is usually the case and that's the problem. It tends to produce cartels and overwhelming bureaucracy for new entrants

At my last haircut, my hairdresser spoke in overwhelming support of the need for professionalization of the state regulatory agency. This doesn't mean that you need career people (which would lead to the cartelization you mentioned), it means that the people in charge of regulations should know WTF they're talking about.

The problem is trying to find someone with both the knowledge and the time/desire. It leads to only established owners being there.

gimmegimme: ArkAngel: melopene: Darth_Lukecash: I don't see how the ability to drink would have any bearing on heading up such a commission.

You don't want someone who's got some experience in utilities on your Public Service Commission?

Don't want someone with medical training on your state's Medical Board?

Don't want someone with knowledge of hairdressing/nail care and the related sanitation and safety issues to be in charge of your state Board of Cosmetology?

You wouldn't want someone who's never had a drink in their life to be in charge of your Alcoholic Beverage Control board either, then.

Actually, this is usually the case and that's the problem. It tends to produce cartels and overwhelming bureaucracy for new entrants

Are you saying that it's bad for hair stylists and those in relate professions to have to learn stuff about their profession?

Not really. But immovable bureaucracy is not necessary. Example: Jestina Clayton, an African immigrant in Utah, started a hair-braiding business in her home. A competitor complained to the state cosmetology board, which threatened her with $2,000 a day fines for practicing without a license. To get such a license, she would need to attend 2,000 hours of beauty classes - more schooling than the state required for armed security guards, mortgage loan originators, real estate sales agents, EMTs a ...


You and your friend must live in an interesting state.
 
2012-02-25 12:33:01 AM
A step in the right direction, subby
 
2012-02-25 12:33:25 AM

melopene: ArkAngel: To top it off, none of these classes taught African braiding and she didn't do anything else.

I personally see no point in government regulation of something as lowly as cosmetology. I go to a barber. If that barber screws up or doesn't do what I wanted and refuses to fix it then I go somewhere else. It wouldn't matter to me if they had a license or went to school for it if they can get the job done for the right price.

No, African braiding wasn't taught, but proper sanitation and identifying health issues of concern related to a customer's scalp and hair were.

Boards of Cosmetology don't exist because they're a mechanism to complain if you get a haircut you don't like. They exist to prevent you from getting lice, fungal infections, and other nasty things. These boards usually also cover aesteticians, who are the nice ladies who give you facials and put crazy mixtures of stuff on your skin. Wouldn't it be nice for them to have a basic understanding of scalp and facial dermatology before just pouring on a mixture of cucumber, oatmeal, alcohol, peroxide, and some crappy lotion from the drug store, and to be responsible to some kind of authority when they make all the skin on your face peel off?


Let that be up to the consumer. If I did those sorts of things to my hair and/or face, I would probably want someone who was well trained. But that's me. If it would be cheaper to go somewhere else that does just a good of a job using life experience and common sense, then let someone choose that.
 
2012-02-25 12:34:29 AM

gimmegimme: ArkAngel: gimmegimme: ArkAngel: melopene: ArkAngel: Actually, this is usually the case and that's the problem. It tends to produce cartels and overwhelming bureaucracy for new entrants

At my last haircut, my hairdresser spoke in overwhelming support of the need for professionalization of the state regulatory agency. This doesn't mean that you need career people (which would lead to the cartelization you mentioned), it means that the people in charge of regulations should know WTF they're talking about.

The problem is trying to find someone with both the knowledge and the time/desire. It leads to only established owners being there.

gimmegimme: ArkAngel: melopene: Darth_Lukecash: I don't see how the ability to drink would have any bearing on heading up such a commission.

You don't want someone who's got some experience in utilities on your Public Service Commission?

Don't want someone with medical training on your state's Medical Board?

Don't want someone with knowledge of hairdressing/nail care and the related sanitation and safety issues to be in charge of your state Board of Cosmetology?

You wouldn't want someone who's never had a drink in their life to be in charge of your Alcoholic Beverage Control board either, then.

Actually, this is usually the case and that's the problem. It tends to produce cartels and overwhelming bureaucracy for new entrants

Are you saying that it's bad for hair stylists and those in relate professions to have to learn stuff about their profession?

Not really. But immovable bureaucracy is not necessary. Example: Jestina Clayton, an African immigrant in Utah, started a hair-braiding business in her home. A competitor complained to the state cosmetology board, which threatened her with $2,000 a day fines for practicing without a license. To get such a license, she would need to attend 2,000 hours of beauty classes - more schooling than the state required for armed security guards, mortgage loan originators, real estate sales agen ...


Wisconsin. He teaches at a private school. And he teaches better than my public school math teacher did.
 
2012-02-25 12:35:23 AM
Hey noobs i'm taking about only in the us. Mormons had the highest body count till 9/#1.
 
2012-02-25 12:36:24 AM

slc11082: Hey noobs i'm taking about only in the us. Mormons had the highest body count till 9/#1.


The Cherokees would complain about that if any of them were still alive.

Learn some farking US history, I guess.
 
2012-02-25 12:37:36 AM

slc11082: Hey noobs i'm taking about only in the us. Mormons had the highest body count till 9/#1.



Account created: 2011-09-20

Lurk, learn. Then troll.
 
2012-02-25 12:39:10 AM

Darth_Lukecash: I don't see how the ability to drink would have any bearing on heading up such a commission. It's be like saying you need at least five pedophiles on a child sex ring investigative committee. Or at least one Roman Catholic Priest.


It says "consumer", not "drinker." A consumer could be anyone. A chef consumes alcohol, even if he doesn't drink any of it.
 
2012-02-25 12:39:18 AM

ArkAngel: gimmegimme: ArkAngel: gimmegimme: ArkAngel: melopene: ArkAngel: Actually, this is usually the case and that's the problem. It tends to produce cartels and overwhelming bureaucracy for new entrants

At my last haircut, my hairdresser spoke in overwhelming support of the need for professionalization of the state regulatory agency. This doesn't mean that you need career people (which would lead to the cartelization you mentioned), it means that the people in charge of regulations should know WTF they're talking about.

The problem is trying to find someone with both the knowledge and the time/desire. It leads to only established owners being there.

gimmegimme: ArkAngel: melopene: Darth_Lukecash: I don't see how the ability to drink would have any bearing on heading up such a commission.

You don't want someone who's got some experience in utilities on your Public Service Commission?

Don't want someone with medical training on your state's Medical Board?

Don't want someone with knowledge of hairdressing/nail care and the related sanitation and safety issues to be in charge of your state Board of Cosmetology?

You wouldn't want someone who's never had a drink in their life to be in charge of your Alcoholic Beverage Control board either, then.

Actually, this is usually the case and that's the problem. It tends to produce cartels and overwhelming bureaucracy for new entrants

Are you saying that it's bad for hair stylists and those in relate professions to have to learn stuff about their profession?

Not really. But immovable bureaucracy is not necessary. Example: Jestina Clayton, an African immigrant in Utah, started a hair-braiding business in her home. A competitor complained to the state cosmetology board, which threatened her with $2,000 a day fines for practicing without a license. To get such a license, she would need to attend 2,000 hours of beauty classes - more schooling than the state required for armed security guards, mortgage loan originators, real estat ...


I implore you to research the concept of "anecdotal evidence". (That's a nice way of reminding you that bragging on your buddy doesn't equal proof of anything.) It might also behoove you to understand that people who know more about subjects than you do (like those pesky experts appointed by the state) might know more than you do about the subjects to which they've devoted their lives. If you have any medical problems, please go see a certified, licensed doctor. Not just some guy who figured it out through common sense.
 
2012-02-25 12:43:09 AM
Are there enough people in Utah who can fulfill this criteria?
 
2012-02-25 12:43:42 AM

ArkAngel: Let that be up to the consumer. If I did those sorts of things to my hair and/or face, I would probably want someone who was well trained. But that's me. If it would be cheaper to go somewhere else that does just a good of a job using life experience and common sense, then let someone choose that.


While I understand where you're coming from, that is a very naive point of view. Price is the driving factor for the vast majority of consumers, and safeguards are not generally considered until adverse effects occur. There are a number of markets that, while they don't fall under the classic microeconomic theories of 'market failures', do fall under the category of 'public value failures'. Cosmetology is one of them. I suggest familiarizing yourself with the work of Barry Bozeman.
 
2012-02-25 12:44:52 AM

what_now: slc11082: Hey noobs i'm taking about only in the us. Mormons had the highest body count till 9/#1.

The Cherokees would complain about that if any of them were still alive.

Learn some farking US history, I guess.


I think the Mormans could use a bit of that as well considering their view of pre-Columbus North America

Cant we agree that Mormonism is batshiat insane?
 
2012-02-25 12:48:21 AM

what_now: slc11082: Hey noobs i'm taking about only in the us. Mormons had the highest body count till 9/#1.

The Cherokees would complain about that if any of them were still alive.

Learn some farking US history, I guess.


Wrong, the indian wars had nothing to do with religion.
Mormons killed in the name of their mormon god.
 
2012-02-25 12:48:27 AM

SquiggelyGrounders: what_now: slc11082: Hey noobs i'm taking about only in the us. Mormons had the highest body count till 9/#1.

The Cherokees would complain about that if any of them were still alive.

Learn some farking US history, I guess.

I think the Mormans could use a bit of that as well considering their view of pre-Columbus North America

Cant we agree that Mormonism is batshiat insane?


Stop being obtuse. This diagram of the Mormon afterlife makes total sense and is in no way batshiat insane:

www.vcaa.com
 
2012-02-25 12:48:49 AM

SquiggelyGrounders: what_now: slc11082: Hey noobs i'm taking about only in the us. Mormons had the highest body count till 9/#1.

The Cherokees would complain about that if any of them were still alive.

Learn some farking US history, I guess.

I think the Mormans could use a bit of that as well considering their view of pre-Columbus North America

Cant we agree that Mormonism is batshiat insane?


Keep up that kind of talk and you won't get your planet to rule when you die.
 
2012-02-25 12:50:37 AM

slc11082: what_now: slc11082: Hey noobs i'm taking about only in the us. Mormons had the highest body count till 9/#1.

The Cherokees would complain about that if any of them were still alive.

Learn some farking US history, I guess.

Wrong, the indian wars had nothing to do with religion.
Mormons killed in the name of their mormon god.


If you're in college, please stay there. Take a history class in which you read books such as Rountree's The Powhatan Indians of Virginia and Axtell's The European and the Indian.
 
2012-02-25 12:50:51 AM

gimmegimme: SquiggelyGrounders: what_now: slc11082: Hey noobs i'm taking about only in the us. Mormons had the highest body count till 9/#1.

The Cherokees would complain about that if any of them were still alive.

Learn some farking US history, I guess.

I think the Mormans could use a bit of that as well considering their view of pre-Columbus North America

Cant we agree that Mormonism is batshiat insane?

Stop being obtuse. This diagram of the Mormon afterlife makes total sense and is in no way batshiat insane:

[www.vcaa.com image 640x468]


It's like some kind of religious Rube Goldberg contraption.
 
2012-02-25 12:52:04 AM
Is the existence of the pork producers board intolerant to Muslims?

No, because religious beliefs are personal and not to be forced upon those who do not believe the same.
 
2012-02-25 12:52:33 AM

SquiggelyGrounders: Cant we agree that Mormonism is batshiat insane?


Of course. But no more so than any other religion. You want to believe that your god knocked up a virgin and then tortured his child to death for your sake? cool. No less weird then believing some dude found some magic plates on the ground that said "I am your god now. Give me your womens".

But don't elevate your recent history to farking crusades/Inquisition/holocaust levels.
That will just piss me off.
 
Displayed 50 of 177 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report