Critics of the Church of the Latter Day Saints can easily point to passages in the Book of Mormon that seem bizarre and unfathomable to non-believers. But the same can be done with the Book of Revelation or Old Testament accounts of a "wrathful" God. Religious beliefs by their very nature are not subject to the same dispassionate analysis as healthcare plans.

The difference here is that the Book of Mormon was written only 180 years ago by some guy from Utah. There's historical records, personal accounts and knowledge of this time, all in English and not distorted and altered by almost 2000 years of history. To know all the church's beliefs and the story of its founding and then still believe in all of it is just dumb. I wouldn't want a Mormon president because actually buying into all of that shows a dangerous lack of logic, reasoning and critical thinking, all of which are qualities that I'd like a president to have.

So this man believes that a guy in Utah in 1830 was told by an angel that there were golden plates buried near his house that contained the word of God, and the central article of his faith is a book that was dictated by the guy while looking into a hat. Coincidentally, only 11 people claim to actually have seen these plates, because apparently artifacts placed on earth by God that would basically provide hard proof for the claims you're making really aren't a big enough deal to let the general public in on it.

You really want a man who believes all this to run the country?

I'm voting for Hillary. I have faith in a Clinton, because Clintons know how to beat the evil people who have sullied our country's reputation and squandered the good will of the world. And that's the most important thing to me right now. We must win. You can't do shit if you don't win.

That's funny, because the need to win is the exact reason why I don't support Hillary in the primaries. The only possible way to motivate the Republican base to get out and vote in 08 more than putting Hillary up as the democratic candidate would be to run a homosexual muslim socialist. Don't underestimate how much they despise anyone with the name Clinton. Also, take a look at how many people already have an unfavorable view of her in the polls. Do you really think she would be the candidate most likely to win?

Also, one of the biggest reasons I don't want to see Hillary in the White House in 2008 is it will no doubt continue the bitterly partisan atmosphere that has characterized American politics for the past eight years. It will be counterproductive and will continue to distract from the real important issues for at least another 4 years. Now I'm not some kind of hopeless idealist that thinks that one person can bring both sides together in harmony and we'll all live happily ever after, but I do believe Clinton would just continue the current cycle.

If you just want want some kind of revenge candidate to rub it in the faces of Republicans, which it seems like you do, then Hillary would be your best choice. But if you want someone that won't keep widening the ridiculous divide between left and right in this country then I strongly suggest you look elsewhere.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-7040357,00.html

She's the frontrunner in an election where it's widely believed that the winner of this primary will likely go on to win the general election. Of course the other candidates are going to go after her, especially when the big complaint by many potential voters is that all the democratic candidates are alike.

I knew Hillary wouldn't be above playing the role of the poor little woman being attacked by these big mean men the second they started to take shots at her. It's a cheap ploy for sympathy from women voters, who (if i remember correctly) she's currently polling very poorly with. Honestly, can you imagine a male candidate making a video like this?

I'm a bit surprised at little to no mention of college football during what have been two of the craziest weeks in recent memory, especially your alma mater (and mine) Cal has managed to get their highest ranking in 56 years.

I realize there's still a lot of games to play and the BCS rankings haven't even started yet, but its still a bit odd to not even see even a few sentences about something like one of the biggest upsets (and one of the most exciting final drives) in college football history.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=0Si6YLWRS9A

Depicting a normal morning as some sort of violent bondage/murder scene just by exaggerating the details is brilliant. I can't think of an opener that fit its show better than this.

Am I the only one that gets a kick out of how whenever there's even a small jab at or hint of bias towards one candidate or the other the letters about sexism/racism/etc just flood in?

Bonus points to tommydsz for managing to get mad at Conason for writing an article praising the candidate that he supports.

While i may be able to understand there being no nominations for Dexter as a whole, I can't believe Michael C. Hall wasn't nominated for his incredible performance. At the very least they should have nominated Christian Camargo (who plays Rudy) for best supporting actor.

Also, I think everyone should be used to The Wire getting screwed out of Emmys by now.