Tuesday, May 27, 2008
|
|
Veepstakes: More Important Than Ever?
|
|
Posted by:
Matt Lewis at
8:49 AM
|
Writing in today's NYT, David Brooks argues that, "... as a rule, recent vice presidential nominees haven’t had any effect on key states or constituencies."
He goes on to argue that,
".... the vice presidential pick is not really a campaign decision. It’s the first governing decision — and a way to see who is thinking seriously about how to succeed in the White House." Brooks makes a good point, and I think it's one that conservatives should take to heart. If the vice president pick is really a governing decision, then we should not accept a moderate Republican based on the argument that he or she will "deliver" a state or constituency. Moreover, if the vice presidency is truly a governing pick, then it's vitally important to pick someone who has a firm grounding in classical liberal philosophy.
The veep decision is the most important decision John McCain will make in the next several months, as it will send a signal as to how McCain might govern. A good conservative pick will establish a clear future successor, and send a message that McCain plans to govern as a conservative. On the other hand, choosing someone deemed not acceptable to most conservatives would send the opposite signal.
Of the candidates currently being wooed by McCain, Jindal and Romney both appear to be acceptable to most conservatives. Likewise SC governor Mark Sanford and OK Senator Tom Coburn are both popular conservative favorites, though they have not received the same level of attention from McCain.
While the "veepstakes" are always closely followed by political junkies, it's fair to say that the current lack of a GOP successor -- as well as McCain's age -- make this pick even more important than ever.
|
|
While TownHall continues its man-crush on Mitt Romney, the fact is that he's not acceptable to a lot of social conservatives, because of his the cult he belongs to and because we know deep down, he's a liberal.
If he's on the ticket, he'll put Missouri, Virginia and maybe even Florida into play. |
|
|
"we should not accept" stuff? McCain is the republican nominee, that's it, he does not have to appeal to conservatives (they all seem to hate him anyway, so what's the point). The fact is that the choice is either to vote for him, vote for a fringe candidtate (which equals a vote for Obama), stay home (which equals a vote for Obama), or vote for Obama. |
|
|
Lets not forget Mitch Daniels from Indiana. Also Senator Jim DeMint would be a more popular choice than Gov Stanford from South Carolina. |
|
First off, I have been a huge supporter of Mitt Romney; however have been a little ambivalent about his prospect of being selected as the VP running mate because I'm having difficullty picturing those two working together and I'm concerned about Romney's future after yoking himself to the McCain wagon.
I'm beginning to change that view however, and think it may be a good choice for McCain and Romney. That choice could help deliver some of us conservatives (I may even be persuaded if Romney was on the ticket). There are a few fringe nutcases like JoeB and his constant bashing of Romney's religious affiliation but we may just have to try and move forward without the JoeB's - man how would we ever survive?
Observe1234, it raises my hackles when someone says that a vote for anyone but McCain is a vote for Obama. I may, in the end, figure out a way to vote for McCain and still look myself in the mirror the next morning, but I also may decide I cannot in good conscience do it. I take my vote very seriously and believe everyone should vote their own conscience. It is an individual sacred right and there are more choices than two. Granted, one of those two will be the next president but a vote can also be a message sent of our feelings about where we want the country heading. |
|
Just call this article "Anyone But Crist".
I can understand why some conservatives have some issues with Crist (and McCain for that matter) but the overt love affair guys like Matt have with Romney is embarrassing. And for the record, I'm actually all for Romney to be on the ticket at this point, but I'm not about to drool over him like so many columnists on this site. |
|
MC:There are a few fringe nutcases like JoeB and his constant bashing of Romney's religious affiliation but we may just have to try and move forward without the JoeB's - man how would we ever survive?
ME: Polls have shown again and again that Americans are not ready for a LDS cultist to be president.
http://www.religionnewsblog.com/15146/are-americans-ready-f or-a-mormon-president
And once again, that is only because a large portion of the American people are actually unaware of what nuttiness these folks believe in. Just wait until the MSM gets to start talking about magic underwear and becoming Gods on their own worlds and all of the other whacky beliefs they have.
I'll be straight with you, the only reason I held my nose and voted for McCain, despite all the times he's sandbagged the president, immigration, McCain-Feingold, is because he wasn't Romney. Taking Romney as a running mate would force me to vote for Barr. |
|
Here's an important piece of advice: If it looks like it's going to be McCain/Palin anyway (and that should be a "no brainer" for Team McCain), McCain should announce NOW or VERY SOON, rather than later towards the convention. There's currently a growing chorus for Obama/Hillary (as VP) ticket (in fact the Dems are likely aware of the Palin phenomenon). If the GOP waits while movement for Hillary as VP grows -- even worse until after it is solidified that Hillary will/could be VP pick -- selecting Palin will be portrayed by Dems/liberal media more as a reaction by GOP selecting its own female (overshawdoing Palin's own remarkable assets), rather than McCain taking the lead on this. Selecting Palin now or early (contrary to the punditocracy) will mean McCain will be seen as driving the course of this campaign overwhelmingly, and the DEMS will be seen as merely reacting. And, there's absoultely no down-side to this because even if Hillary is a no-go as VP for Obama, the GOP gains by acting early. McCain the maverick. Palin the maverick. Do it now!
There's no reason, and actually substantial negative, in McCain waiting to see what the Dems do first insofar as his picking Palin as VP, because, no matter who Obama picks, Palin is by far (and I mean far) the best pick for McCain and the GOP, especially in this time of GOP woes. The GOP can be seen as the party of real 'change' (albeit I hate that mantra, change, change, bla bla), while not really having to change from GOP core conservative values, which Palin more than represents.
In light of the current oil/energy situation, as well as the disaffected female Hillary voters situation, and growing focus on McCain's age and health, Palin is more than perfect -- now.
(Perhaps Team McCain is already on to this.)
|
|
of Governing, Not picking a VP. That is what McCain has to overcome to get Conservatives to "Come Home".
To Date McCain has done little more than toss stale crumbs to Conservatives, while McCain and his McCainiacs (including many here on Town Hall) outright attack Conservatives for Not being Good Republicans.
I an an Elected Delegate and I will not support McCain unless he goes to the floor of the Senate and SHOW me something different that he has the past 10 years. Call me a BAD Republican if you wish, but that only drives me away, not closer.
McCain can get full conservative support but it will take more than picking an "Acceptable VP" and the clock is ticking for McCain. |
|
Let's look at some of the key places where Romney would hurt McCain.
Virginia- Already a tight race, adding Romney to the mix will cause a lot of Evangelicals to stay home.
Iowa- Same deal. McCain already hurting their because he's had the integrity to admit the Ethanol Emperor has no clothes, but adding Romney to the ticket will kill him.
Ohio- Romney's history of padding his own wealth by downsizing yours won't play well in a state already hurting from industrial decline.
Missouri- See Virginia. Let's not forget, it was legal to shoot a Mormon into the 1980's in that state. (Not really, but the cultists like to say so.)
So here we have four swing states that Romney might tip to Obama. What states does he bring to the table? Colorado? Maybe. Michigan? Doubtful. Massachusetts- definitely not. |
|
Romney is QUITE acceptable!
As usual,your assessment and hate of Romney is wrong. Mitt actually won West VA, until a backroom deal that was quite legal, but not ethical, was cut and gave huckabee the win. In votes cast, Mitt won it. In Fla, he was ahead, until the lie was told about timetables. Then he barey lost the winner take all state.
We are seeing Mitt as the perfect gentleman. Instead of being bitter, he's better and has helped his former rival to acheieve his goal. What other former candidate has done as much as Mitt? Not one.
President Bush, McCain and Romney are in town today for a fundraiser. McCain and Bush will be meeting with President Monson, and his counslers.
|
|
Wrong ahead!! Mitt will HELP. Not only that, the entire western United States, should matter. It's not just about Iowa anymore.
|
|
...going for VP is probably a good thing. It not only keeps Mack's name in the press, but it garners publicity for other Republican leaders too as their names are considered.
Trial balloons and vetting can't hurt. Is there any urgency for McCain to make a decision any time soon? |
|
I implore you. Jump on the Barr bandwagon NOW. You'll be better suited for him than or the real conservatives out here. Have fun. I'm sure you'll find likeminded anit-s there.
And yes, mr. history buff. do your homework. It WAS legal to shoot mormons in Mo - until quite recently, in fact. |
|
|
Will vote for Romney on the ticket. Pretty significant, if you ask me. But then, I learned my math at school, and not at church. |
|
|
While I was of the school to get the name out fast- I think waiting for Obama to make his move might be a good thing. Taking wind out of his sails with McCain's announcment might work. It could also backfire. I'm no fan of Obama, but it might not be so bad to have a left of carter guy or the president, so we can get true conservatives back, and regroup our party. Joeb, exculded, of course. |
|
McCain, I'm sure has a longer list than we are discussing. There is no way that he will, or should, tip his hand prior to the Democrat convention. He would gain nothing by announcing anything prior to that.
Some of us get our hopes up a bit that he'll pick someone who will help pacify some of our conservativeness, but if history is any indication, Mr Maverick will pick someone who will appeal to the independents and be a middle of the isle guy/woman like McCain, and it'll be a moot point for us conservatives anyway.
By the way JoeB, I would really be sorry to see you go to Barr if Romney received the VP nod, but he could use you, and doggonit, we may just somehow survive without you. Then, if McCain wins the WH with Romney as VP, I believe I remember you promising to leave the country, right. Do you think your 37% will join you? Aw, we can only dream.
|
|
QM: Romney is QUITE acceptable!
As usual,your assessment and hate of Romney is wrong. Mitt actually won West VA, until a backroom deal that was quite legal, but not ethical, was cut and gave huckabee the win. In votes cast, Mitt won it. In Fla, he was ahead, until the lie was told about timetables. Then he barey lost the winner take all state.
I was talking about Virginia, not West Virginia. If the GOP has a hard time taking WV (a state Dems haven't carried since 1964) we are so screwed it isn't funny. Do try to keep up.
Virginia is going to be close, because it's been trending Blue for the last few elections, culiminating with the election of Jim Webb. Kick the Evangelicals off the bus, and Obama will take it.
QM:We are seeing Mitt as the perfect gentleman. Instead of being bitter, he's better and has helped his former rival to acheieve his goal. What other former candidate has done as much as Mitt? Not one.
ME: Actually, they all have... |
|
Qweenmumof7 writes: Tuesday, May, 27, 2008 10:21 AM
63%
Will vote for Romney on the ticket. Pretty significant, if you ask me. But then, I learned my math at school, and not at church."
Uh, no, that's 37% that won't vote for your guy, no matter what. The remaining 63% have to be convinced.
Assume a certain percentage of that 63% probably hate LDS cultists as much as the 37%, but aren't going to say so because they don't want the pollsters to think they are bigots.
Assume also a large percentage of that 63% might actually vote against a McCain Romney ticket because of policy. In case you haven't been paying attention, (and obviously, you haven't) the GOP is already weighted down with an unpopular war and a sinking economy.
And it isn't too much a stretch to realize that a lot of that 63% will be shocked and horrified when they learn more about LDS beliefs and history. YOu know, the stuff you guys hide and Mitt won't give a straight answer about.
|
|
"By the way JoeB, I would really be sorry to see you go to Barr if Romney received the VP nod, but he could use you, and doggonit, we may just somehow survive without you. Then, if McCain wins the WH with Romney as VP, I believe I remember you promising to leave the country, right. Do you think your 37% will join you? Aw, we can only dream."
If Romney is on the ticket, I will be looking forward to 4-8 years of Obama. I honestly doubt McCain could win under any circumstances. It just isn't the GOP's year. I'm just hoping to minimize the damage so we can rally and come back in 2010 and 2012.
Oh, never said I'd leave the country if Magic Underwear won.
|
|
I am agreeing with everybody this morning.
QueenMum: Romney is a gentlemen with proven accomplishments who brings necessary assets to our country. He is head and shoulders above everyone when it comes to intelligence, integrity and ability. Not perfect, just better.
Joeb: There are way too many clueless ignoramouses who believe the nonsense you spew about Mormonism. Millions of people way more intelligent and informed than you see the truth and goodness in Mormonism. But there are a huge bunch just like you who sit in their pews (a la Barack listening to Wright) soaking up your pastor's hate-filled, agenda-driven caca about Mormons and believing it.
Ted: Mack choosing another white man for VP is just another ho-hum: business as usual. Choosing Palin would be a media sensation. She is fresh, conservative, courageous and savvy. Palin could do it for Mack.
However, if Mack were to announce choosing Palin sooner rather than later, it would almost insure Hill being on the Obama ticket. That would not be good for Pubs, I don't think. |
|
|
She's needed to fight for oil rights in Alaska, and has her plate full with her new, beautiful and perfect, Downs baby. She's a rising star - in a few years. |
|
QM7:Qweenmumof7 writes: Tuesday, May, 27, 2008 10:17 AM
Oh joeb
Wrong ahead!! Mitt will HELP. Not only that, the entire western United States, should matter. It's not just about Iowa anymore.
Me: Are you really so delusional that you think McCain will tip CA, WA or OR into the red column? I concede he might help in CO, but UT, WY, MT, ID, AZ are all gimmes, and he really doesn't help in NM. Not to mention nearly all the red states in teh west are small potatoes compared to the swing states.
|
|
Enlighten me. What do we LDS hide? Just because we don't like tar and feathers, does not make us bad folks.
Get a grip of reality. Were here, and we're voting citizens, and we CAN and WILL run for office, and win.
Please, join Barr's bandwagon now. He needs you. |
|
|
for M*M ticket. the other 37, about half will come around, the other half will dig in their heels and vote Barr. Goody for them. |
|
Observe1234 says 'he does not have to appeal to conservatives '
He does if he wants any of them to vote for him, bozo. There are some pragmatic conservatives who might be willing to do this, but McCain has to give them something. Policy wise, he sure hasn't. Others, like myself, won't vote for him no matter what. I'm hoping for a veep that will be as pathetic as the candidate himself. The McCain presidency is going to feel like a really bad hangover for everyone and so at the very least we need a veep who will be entertaining. Huckabee, clueless buffoon that he is, would be perfect. He'd be able to alienate vast swaths of demographics or whole countrys with just one speech. Another favorite would be McCain's favorite buttboy, Lindsey Graham. Romney would be wasted with Mccain; all he'd be doing is tying a boat anchor around his neck. Let McCain take someone else to the bottom. |
|
QM7: And yes, mr. history buff. do your homework. It WAS legal to shoot mormons in Mo - until quite recently, in fact.
ME: Oh, well, that's progress for you... |
|
...Lord only knows why.
But, really, what electoral value is he? The first rule of VP, like an MD, is, do no harm.
Romney's negatives:
(1) Part of a fringe somewhat secretive religion that most Americans no only little about. And, what they do know they are not comfortable with. Now, call this bigotry, or call it intuitive good sense. Either way, the practical problem remains. And, politics is the art of the possible.
(2) His claim to fame is the Olympics, but his life's work is as a venture capitalist. Most working class people suspect that at least part of America's trouble is with that class of folk --the Michael Milken/Ken Lay crowd. Not that Romney has done anything illegal, but he is part of the super-rich corporate class that America is increasingly distrustful of.
(3) His record as Governor is not really noteworthy, and actually contains many failures, of commission, or omission, as the case may be.
(4) As a politician, one gets the impression that while Romney takes "positions" he really has no abiding "convictions". Its all about marketing. If casting as a moderate is more salable, then a moderate he will be, if casting as a conservative is what the public wants, then thats fine too. Its all good.
Ironically, because of this last electoral negative, he would work well with McCain because he would be what McCain wanted him to be. Likely he would, in time, (maybe in short time) come to adopt (re-adopt?) most of McCain's positions. |
|
QM7: Enlighten me. What do we LDS hide? Just because we don't like tar and feathers, does not make us bad folks.
Get a grip of reality. Were here, and we're voting citizens, and we CAN and WILL run for office, and win.
Please, join Barr's bandwagon now. He needs you.
ME: Can you tell me the last time a Mormon was tarred and feathered? Amusing as a concept as that is, I don't think it's happened in 100 years or so. (DO they tar and feather ANYONE anymore?)
The point is that Barr will be a protest vote for anyone not thrilled with McCain. If you have 37% of the population (most of it trending right, not left) who won't vote for a Mormon, you are just making it easier for Barr to sink McCain's boat.
|
|
Joe B..
Let's talk reality here about the impact of Mormon doctrine on public policy.
1. Which areas of public policy do honestly you think will be influenced by Mormon doctrine, and how will they be affected?
2. If you have an actual answer for #1, how do you honestly think Romney would be able to push through these doctrines through policy with as much reluctance about Mormons as you cite in the statistics.
I'm an evangelical Christian and so while I believe the Mormon doctrine is not a Christian doctrine, I am not electing him to be a pastor or elder of my church (as has been said before). I am supporting him because of his values and positions on many issues that are in line with conservative values and principles, which on many issues (especially the economy) are more conservative than Huckabee's or McCain's. |
|
...ignoramous. Not going to church for 25 years makes you an expert on Mormonism? And listening to South Park is where you get your information?
And Mormons are on the scam or just dumb because YOU say so?
If you had spent even part of that 25 years actually learning about Mormonism you would realize that its greatest appeal is reason and logic.
That's why there is such a preponderance of Mormon lawyers, accountants and scientists. That's why in nearly every other religion, the more education you get, the less faithful and observant you are. With Mormons, the more education you recieve, the more observant you are.
80-90% of Mormons with Master's and Doctorate degrees are active and observant in the faith. If you believe Mormonism is unrational, illogical or unBiblical, you are just not gettin' it. |
|
Qweenmumof7 writes: '63 will vote for M*M ticket. the other 37, about half will come around...'
ME: 63% won't vote for M*M. Isn't that 63% of general public? (not registered Republicans)? If so, a disportionate number of the 37% are Republicans, but the 63% is split with the Dems, probably a majority being Dems. |
|
Dan writes: 'Let's talk reality here about the impact of Mormon doctrine on public policy.
1. Which areas of public policy do honestly you think will be influenced by Mormon doctrine, and how will they be affected?'
ME: Lemme jump in and say JoeB has his own reasons, but most reluctent evangelicals, in my view, aren't looking at your specific question (though a few are). Rtaher, part of the answer is captured by a non_evangelical, at link below:
'[O]bservers still don’t fully understand why evangelical Christian voters are having a problem with Romney’s Mormon religion':
http://rothenbergpoliticalreport.blogspot.com/2007/12/why-m itt-romney-cant-solve-his-mormon.html |
|
Now, unlike JoeB, you raise some legitimate issues:
(1) "Part of a fringe somewhat secretive religion that most Americans no only little about. And, what they do know they are not comfortable with. Now, call this bigotry, or call it intuitive good sense. Either way, the practical problem remains. And, politics is the art of the possible."
I understand there are some concerns, but as Dan points out, his religious views have nothing to do with public policy. I believe that the American people will see him for the man that he is and for his public stances rather than where he worships on Sunday. I know some will not, and will not voter for him for the reason you list - and I'm sorry, but I do call that bigotry.
(2) "His claim to fame is the Olympics, but his life's work is as a venture capitalist. Most working class people suspect that at least part of America's trouble is with that class of folk --the Michael Milken/Ken Lay crowd. Not that Romney has done anything illegal, but he is part of the super-rich corporate class that America is increasingly distrustful of."
I disagree. The Olympics were only a portion of his background and his "claim to fame". He has been an extremely successful businessman - since when is that a negative in a party that's very basis is in capitalism and personal responsibility?
|
|
Then it's clear. As long as there is a large voting block who would never vote for a Mormon, a Mormon can never be POTUS. And now it appears not even VP.
Your link refers to Romney's Faith in America speech. Part of the commentary reads: "In each case, evangelicals and Jews would not want to elevate to high office someone who might give legitimacy to a group that passes itself off as something that it is not, and that threatens their own group."
A Mormon, no matter how qualified, can never be POTUS or VP because too many voters would not allow Mormonism to receive legitimacy, which they fear would threaten their own group.
There is something quite sick, unChristian and definitely unAmerican about this mind set. |
|
Joeb: The Admitted....
...ignoramous. Not going to church for 25 years makes you an expert on Mormonism? And listening to South Park is where you get your information?
And Mormons are on the scam or just dumb because YOU say so?
If you had spent even part of that 25 years actually learning about Mormonism you would realize that its greatest appeal is reason and logic.
That's why there is such a preponderance of Mormon lawyers, accountants and scientists. That's why in nearly every other religion, the more education you get, the less faithful and observant you are. With Mormons, the more education you recieve, the more observant you are.
80-90% of Mormons with Master's and Doctorate degrees are active and observant in the faith. If you believe Mormonism is unrational, illogical or unBiblical, you are just not gettin' it."
Benjamin Disraeli said that mendacity comes in three forms. Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics. How many Mormon scientists, etc get excommunicated for doubting the faith, or chose to leave on their own?
Sorry, believing a book full of plagarism and historical anachronisms is true is not "logical". Logic says, "show me proof". Mormonism has none.
|
|
(3) "His record as Governor is not really noteworthy, and actually contains many failures, of commission, or omission, as the case may be."
Again, I respectfully disagree. Being the CEO in the strongest liberal commonwealth in the country was challenging, no doubt, and he probably did make some mistakes, but he got things done. He sees something that needs fixed and he does it. What are your specific failures you are referring to?
(4) "As a politician, one gets the impression that while Romney takes "positions" he really has no abiding "convictions". Its all about marketing. If casting as a moderate is more salable, then a moderate he will be, if casting as a conservative is what the public wants, then thats fine too. Its all good."
I have met the man personally and I can tell you he does have deep convictions. He wants this country to be prosperous and return to the conservative values it was built upon. Again, he has a unique ability to see what needs to be fixed and the experience, leadership and organizational skills to be able to attack it and get it fixed.
|
|
I believe you told me once to ignore JoeB. May I give you the same advice. He has nothing new to say, and it's not going to change.
You're wasting good energy on a low life who is not worth it. |
|
K.G. writes: Then it's clear. As long as there is a large voting block who would never vote for a Mormon, a Mormon can never be POTUS. And now it appears not even VP.
A Mormon, no matter how qualified, can never be POTUS or VP because too many voters would not allow Mormonism to receive legitimacy, which they fear would threaten their own group.
There is something quite sick, unChristian and definitely unAmerican about this mind set."
Or sensibly practical. The whole purpose of following a religion is that you believe that is the path to salvation. You're going to Heaven, and everyone else is going to Hell. Otherwise, what's the point of walking the extra six blocks to get to your church when their church is so much closer?
Protestants/Catholics/Evangelicals/Orthodox can get along and vote within the larger group for the most part because the faiths really are about 99% the same. I don't really believe that a Bhuddist, Jew, Muslim or Atheist can because their faiths are so divergent to challenge the mainstream.
Cults like Scientology, the Unification Church, etc, are off the scale. They were founded in close enough to real time that we can actually scrutinize their origins. We know that L. Ron Hubbard was a failed Science Fiction Writer, and we know that Rev. Moon is a certifiable whackjob.
The thing is that we also know Joseph Smith was a whackjob. We can scrutinize Mormonism origins.
|
|
Legitimate question. Are you guys so tolerant (yeah, right) that you'd ignore the goofy things the Scientologists believe and just goo over what a great businessman he is?
I mean, by that logic, we should get Tom Cruise to be McCain's running mate. He looks better and he's been even more successful. |
|
|
|
I don't remember advising you to ignore Joeb, but it's obviously good advice, which I will happily take. The man's a loon.
Thanks.
|
|
MaineConservative writes:
I believe you told me once to ignore JoeB. May I give you the same advice. He has nothing new to say, and it's not going to change.
You're wasting good energy on a low life who is not worth it.
ME: Upset you aren't the center of attention, Princess?
|
|
Personall, I would not care if Mitt were a scienctoligist. I go to Cruz movies and it doesnot bother me at all.
Your arugmnet us bogus. Get another one, please. |
|
I think there's a difference between seeing a movie and letting someone have control over your life for a few years...
I can respect one's talents, but you have to question his judgment. If he really beleives that Thetans clinging on his body from Evil Space Lord Xenu influence his life, I'd call that person a loon.
If he believes that he can become a God on his own little planet, I'd call him a loon, too. |
|
|
People like JoeB are numb nuts! Evangelicals are really starting to pi$$ me off. I think it is hilarious how scared they are of Mormons. Throwing the word "cultist" around is so weak! Let's get it out. You want to know about the "magic underware?" As far as anyone is concerned it is just underware. It is special to Mormons as it has symbolistic reminders about being a Disciple of Christ. Wow, isn't that mind blowing! It is sacred stuff to members of the LDS church. Mormons are just like any other group of people. However, as a whole they try a little harder and are made fun of for doing so. |
|
They have a new bracket system set up for people to vote for McCain's VP choice. The expected winners in the 1st round are on top right now.
|
|
Queen,
The question was whether or not you would vote for McCain if he chose a Scientologist for a running mate.
Watching a actor in a movie and trusting him (and his inability to discern truth from lies) with the Vice Presidency of the United States are two very different things. |
|
You hit the nail on the head. You want a mormon doing your taxes, but not running your country. You want a mormon inventing stuff that will save your life, like the heart valve, but not saving the economy. You want a mormon sending you food and meds after a disaster, but you don't want a mormon sending in troops.
It's pretty dumb when folks like Joeb are allowed to spew their hate and mis information. BUT, we have only gotten stronger in the over 1 |
|
Noticed them. And even though Romney has a huge lead in his bracket, these things mean diddly squat. much like these boards. They won't impact the direction of the decision.
FYI. Romney, Bush and McCain here in Utah....raising more cash. |
|
The ANSWER is Yes. If John McCain choose a scientologist as a running mate, and he was qualified to be president someday, I would have NO problem voting for him.
I'm not as narrow minded as Joeb is. |
|
MaineConservative writes: 'I understand there are some concerns, but as Dan points out, his religious views have nothing to do with public policy.'
ME: Leaving Mormonism aside, I'm one of those who wouldn't vote for an atheist, because while I respect my fellow American's right to worship (or not) as he/she pleases, I think there would be much cultural harm from elevating an atheist (or homosexual) to POTUS.
MaineConservative writes: 'I believe that the American people will see him for the man that he is and for his public stances rather than where he worships on Sunday. I know some will not, and will not voter for him for the reason you list - and I'm sorry, but I do call that bigotry.'
ME: There are really two types of persons, that I see, who are reluctant.
(1) There are those who are concerned about the beneficial effect the Presidency will have on the public perception of a religion which they see should be discouraged, for religious and cultural reasons, and not encouraged.
And, (2) there are those who consider enough to be factually and logically wrong with Mormon beliefs, that they [the critics] are concerned Mormons do not experience cognitive dissonance, in which case Mormons are delusional, or Mormons do experience cognitive dissonance, but they repress it, in which case they are in denial.
Category (1) is concerned not with governing, per se, but with the effect on culture. Category (2) is concerned with governing. If the critics in category (2) are correct in the assessment I described, then Mormons would cause concern if they were in power.
Category (2)'s concerns seem more speculative, because Mormons appear to function like everyone else out in the business world.
My suspicion is that Mormons don't experience cognitive dissonance, because they don't investigate the problematic areas of their church's official history, theology, etc. They simply accept what their church says, and leave it at that. |
|
I don't care about having a Mormon on the ticket I just want a leader. Romney's previous political positions and/or posturings don't sit well with me. As a Mormon I wouldn't vote for someone just because they are too.
Utah is the only state in the Union that every county was red the past two presidential elections. Besides some of the western environmentalism (the Governor is a big McCain fan and buys the GW bs), the state's politics stands up very well for conservative principles and the things that make the country great. Mormons in general are allies to the conservative cause.
|
|
"The ANSWER is Yes. If John McCain choose a scientologist as a running mate, and he was qualified to be president someday, I would have NO problem voting for him."
That tells me pretty much all I need to know about your own judgment.
|
|
It also tells me a lot about yours. Try reading that pesky constitution. You might find a little part in it about freedom to worship where, and who and even what we please. I don't care what church they go to, so long as they are a good and honest person.
|
|
It's funny how the chatterati and country club (and wannabe country club) class of the GOP are going crazy over Romney and trying to beat those who are not overly crazy about him over the head for how ignorant they must be. Of course, some of the fervent fringe probably exacerbate the feelings and keep the discussion from getting to the real issues. Oh well...
I'm more and more convinced this is a necessary debate for the conservative movement and the GOP to have about the identity of the movement and the party. All constituencies need to air the concerns and grievances, but in the end we need to come up with a set of governing principles that everyone can agree, yet realize that actual policy positions may not adhere as tightly to them as we would like. In general, effective governing means you can not remain as ideologically pure as the more devout of your party would like.
JMHO
JP |
|
While a person's personal theology certainly informs their morality and worldview, it affects different outcomes in different people.
Therefore, on Election Day, rather than obsessing about a person's theology, we examine their voting record and political philosophy.
For example;
Teddy Kennedy & Rick Santorum are both Catholics.
They share the same theological beliefs, however, they don't share the same political beliefs.
Chuck Schumer & Dennis Prager are both Jews.
They share similar theological beliefs, however, they don't share the same political beliefs.
John Edwards & George W. Bush are both Protestant Christians.
They share pretty similar theological beliefs, however, they don't share the same political beliefs.
Harry Reid & Orrin Hatch are both Mormons.
They share the same theological beliefs, however, they don't share the same political beliefs.
As you can see from my examples, people of the same theology can arrive at different political beliefs.
And equally important is that people of DIFFERING THEOLOGY can arrive at SIMILAR political beliefs.
Thus, a premise which holds that because Mitt Romney believes in the Book of Mormon, he therefore cannot be trusted to make sound decisions in the political arena----well, such a thesis simply does not hold water.
In the pluralist arena of American politics, the bottom line is how a politician governs or votes---not which church service he attends. |
|
Your logic and reason will be totally ignored by the BIGOT IDIOT trolls.
But thanks for posting it.
I will continue to ignore the BIGOT IDIOT trolls. |
|
QM7:It also tells me a lot about yours. Try reading that pesky constitution. You might find a little part in it about freedom to worship where, and who and even what we please. I don't care what church they go to, so long as they are a good and honest person.
Me: Being a good person isn't enough. I personally think George W. Bush is a good person, but he's been an unmitigated disaster for the party and probably the country as well.
One's reasoning skills are important, as well.
Yes, the constitution says there shall be no religious test. It doesn't say that voters shouldn't have a reason test.
If someone believes that Lord Xenu dropped billions of alien spirits on Earth or that God lives on the Planet Kolob, we have to really wonder about his reasoning skills.
|
|
GLB
Your illogic and irrationality will be totally laughed at by anyone with a brain.
So thanks for posting it.
I will continue to ignore the Cabbage Head Koolaid Drinking trolls. (well, not really.)
|
|
You cannot believe everything you hear or read, but you can believe what you see in the maturity and consistent behaviour of aLL candidateS.
This cult bit is a big farce as all Christian Churches ORIGINALLY were CULTS THEN. John Locke makes his point in the first paragraph in his 15th Century letter that follows:
A LETTER CONCERNING TOLERATION
John Locke
“Honoured Sir, Since you are pleased to inquire what are my thoughts about the mutual toleration of Christians in their different professions of religion, I must needs answer you freely that I esteem that toleration to be the chief characteristic mark of the true Church. For whatsoever some people boast of the antiquity of places and names, or of the pomp of their outward worship; others, of the reformation of their discipline; all, OF THE ORTHODOXY OF THEIR FAITH—FOR EVERYONE IS ORTHODOX TO HIMSELF—these things, and ALL OTHERS OF THIS NATURE, ARE MUCH RATHER MARKS OF MEN STRIVING FOR POWER AND EMPIRE OVER ONE ANOTHER THAN OF THE CHURCH OF CHRIST. Let ANYONE have never so true a claim to all these things, YET IF HE BE DESTITUTE OF CHARITY, MEEKNESS, AND GOOD-WILL IN GENERAL TOWARDS ALL MANKIND, EVEN TO THOSE THAT ARE NOT CHRISTIANS, HE IS CERTAINLY YET SHORT OF BEING A TRUE CHRISTIAN HIMSELF. "The kings of the Gentiles exercise leadership over them," said our Saviour to his disciples, "but ye shall not be so." The business of true religion is quite another thing. It is not instituted in order to the erecting of an external pomp, nor to the obtaining of ecclesiastical dominion, nor to the exercising of compulsive force, but to the regulating of men's lives, according to the rules of virtue and piety. WHOSOEVER WILL LIST HIMSELF UNDER THE BANNER OF CHRIST, MUST, IN THE FIRST PLACE AND ABOVE ALL THINGS, MAKE WAR UPON HIS OWN LUSTS AND VICES.” |
|
Can you imagine how angry JoeB131 must get whenever the BYU football team is playing a game on television ?
I can just see him screaming at the tv, "Get 'dem Mormons ! Yee-hawww !" as he cracks open another Pabst Blue Ribbon and then yells his lunch order to his live-in girlfriend who is busy slaving away in the kitchen, "Darlin', make me a sandwich---but please don't put any salt on it, because salt makes me think of Utah !"
|
|
Look at the sever debate being caused just by talking about a VP potential. I like Mitt Romney. I'm an evangelical Christian and pulled the lever for Romney in Missouri's Super Tuesday primary. He won my county. Having said that I don't think he is a wise choice for VP. This very debate and the possible problems for many Christians is going to be too great. It will tear our movement apart and in a tough year with a loser like McCain we don't need that.
Now I think we need to stay away from any of the former candidates: Romney, Giuliani, Huckabee (McCain loses my vote if he picks this guy), and so forth. Only Duncan Hunter may be an exeption. Point in case we need a conscensus conservative Republican nominee for VP. |
|
JoeB131, would if surprise you that the description of Kolob and other governing stars and the fact that Earth is one of the furthest out from Kolob a star, a burning sun, describes the universe before telescopes.
Poke fun at that if you wish, It comes from Abraham who lived in Egypt before Christ that had no formal schooling, that would compare to yours.
It was translated by the seer, Joseph Smith before telescopes could see beyond our solar system,, so where does your knowledge come from, if science is confirming this reality even today?
I hope you have a chance to criticize my blog. I welcome any good suggestions. I just wonderer where your alien information came from, because that is the first time I have heard about that. Could you give me your source, I would very much appreciate knowing that if you don’t mind. Thanks
|
|
I am not one that watches that news channel. But while roaming the net and viewing youtube videos I noticed a clip on Chris Mathew's show.
While pointing out some of the pitfalls for each VP candidate they did state how "valuable" and/or "strategic" a Romney VP spot would be due merely to the state of MI. It puts a wrench in the Dems electorate college map. I personally feel that between MI CO & NV alone that this qualifies Romney in a strategic way. I notice the same electoral college breakdown on Rassmussen.com being done and it would appear that if that is the main premise then a Romney VP pick would make sense.
Most (not all) pundits think that FL is a lock regardless of Crist so he brings little help. Jindal doesn't make much of a help and his age difference between McCain and himself makes for a bad pairing.
Huckabee doesn't do much for any non-solid Rep state. I will stick to the electoral college argument in this analysis....
There are few other options that make sense. Pawlenty probably fits into that category as well. I don't know nearly enough about him to know how I feel about his policy views.
In light of the electoral college are there others that come to mind?
|
|
|
I'm not letting a pro abortion liberal Mass Gov anywhere near the Whitehouse |
|
Good insight. I disagree with you in only one aspect. I think Romney is a wise choice. There are a handful of very vocal folks that say they would never vote for a Mormon, and truly would not. then there are those that say they wont, but in the privacy of the voting booth, would do just that. If this blog is just a snapshot, then it seems to be a good thing. Very few are so anti mormon they can't see the forest for the trees. Some are saying one thing, doing another. Still others... Well, they just plod along and pray for the best. They can go either way.
|
|
|
hard and pump cash into the west, we need someone who can win the west - Romney. The west is much more than one state. |
|
|
I am no Mormon and I substantially disagree with some of their theological doctrines. However, some of these comments are pitiful. I have known members of the LDS, and without exception they were exemplary Americans ... other than maybe the current majority leader of the Senate. There are a number who have served their country nobly. They lead clean hard-working lives. Call them a "cult" if you wish, but I would vote for a Mitt Romney ten times over a McCain. I am an evangelical Christian and am fairly well connected in conservative Christian circles. Maybe I have missed something, but I do not know a single one who "hates" Mormons, even though they may disagree religiously speaking. |
|
if so, did Mother God have sex with Father God?
Young, Brigham. 23 February 1862.
http://www.journalofdiscourses.org/Vol_09/refJDvol9-57.html
Brother Kimball quoted a saying of Joseph the Prophet,
that he would not worship a God who had not a Father;
and I do not know that he would if he had not a mother;
the one would be as absurd as the other. If he had a
Father, he was made in his likeness. And if he is our
Father we are made after his image and likeness. He
once possessed a body, as we now do; and our bodies
are as much to us, as his body to him. Every iota of this
organization is necessary to secure for us an exaltation
with the Gods.
|
|
Let's see: attractive, dark-skinned, well spoken, has little experience but lots of gaga fans. Hmmmm.
Wouldn't it be kind of hard to argue against all that if you picked the same?
I say he would be a dumb pick. Let him prove himself in La awhile.
|
|
WHEREAS, on October 27, 1838, the Governor of the State of Missouri, Lilburn W. Boggs, signed an order calling for the extermination or expulsion of Mormons from the State of Missouri; and
WHEREAS, Governor Boggs' order clearly contravened the rights to life, liberty, property and religious freedom as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, as well as the Constitution of the State of Missouri; and
WHEREAS, in this bicentennial year as we reflect on our nation's heritage, the exercise of religious freedom is without question one of the basic tenets of our free democratic republic;
Now, THEREFORE, I, CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Governor of the State of Missouri, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the State of Missouri, do hereby order as follows:
Expressing on behalf of all Missourians our deep regret for the injustice and undue suffering which was caused by the 1838 order, I hereby rescind Executive Order Number 44, dated October 27, 1838, issued by Governor W. Boggs.
In witness I have hereunto set my hand and caused to be affixed the great seal of the State of Missouri, in the city of Jefferson, on this 25 day of June, 1976.
(Signed) Christopher S. Bond, Governor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extermination_Order_(Mormonism )
|
|
What does that have to do with a political view? Honestly - We all get it. You disagree with your whole heart with the theology of the LDS religion. You dispise them/us because it just doesn't jive with you. But you have yet to tell me how that applies and has anything to do with immigration, taxes, abortion, the economy, any issue that the Pres./VP deals with.
This one in particular - how does thie theological belief alter the way a person would fulfil their public office duties?
Grow up!
I won't play the ignore game - I have had SOME interesting discussions with those anti-mormons on the site - but if you can't discuss political things like an adult then you are definately in the wrong place.
|
|
|
go away. Common sense for many of us. Just go away. |
|
|
|
[Akennas on May 27, 2008 5:45 PM]"don't waste any time on them"
[Akennas on May 23, 2008 5:14 PM]"the reason I converted to the LDS at age 18 is because it was the ONLY Christ-centered church I encountered that was consistent, logical and true to the teachings of Jesus Christ."
Do you agree with Jesus in Luke 24:39 that [Jesus]"a spirit hath not flesh and bones"?
Matthew 16 (King James Version)
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2016;&v ersion=9;
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed
art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath
not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in
heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter,
and upon this rock I will build my church; and the
gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
"For the life of me, I cannot comprehend how anyone can read the Bible and still believe in the truly weird stuff most "Christian" denominations teach, such as the 3-in-1 intangible Trinity or transubstantiation."
Do you think Ignatius of Antioch was an apostate?
St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch (c. 107 AD), "Letter to the Romans" 7.3, cited in
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a18.htm
I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures
of this life. I desire the Bread of God, which is the Flesh
of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for
drink I desire his Blood, which is love incorruptible.
"They are either profoundly ignorant and don't know any better or borderline evil - I haven't quite figured out which yet."
Compare
atheist Dawkins
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/dawkins_21_3.html
It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who
claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant,
stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider
that).
Do you think you might become a God at some point in the future?
|
|
|
What are you? A cyber stalker? Do you keep EVERYTHING? If you met a mormon in person, would you shoot to kill? you give me that impression. |
|
|
|
[Qweenmumof7 on May 27, 2008 6:08 PM]"If you met a mormon in person"
I'd ask him or her some questions I had.
Questions such as:
Is there a Mother God?
If so, did Mother God have sex with Father God?
Young, Brigham. 23 February 1862.
http://www.journalofdiscourses.org/Vol_09/refJDvol9-57.html
Brother Kimball quoted a saying of Joseph the Prophet,
that he would not worship a God who had not a Father;
and I do not know that he would if he had not a mother;
the one would be as absurd as the other. If he had a
Father, he was made in his likeness. And if he is our
Father we are made after his image and likeness. He
once possessed a body, as we now do; and our bodies
are as much to us, as his body to him. Every iota of this
organization is necessary to secure for us an exaltation
with the Gods.
Do you think you might become a God at some point in the future?
////////////////////////
questions for Mormons about God
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/msg/f785 2218f5dad887
kids on thrones with intelligence of a God
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/msg/7047 5b523e764678
Romney might become a God?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/msg/099e 1fceabcb4dc4
|
|
Before you kill me for being mormon would be this
"Where the scriptures are silent, we pass over them with reverence.'
In otherwords, you need to ask your Heavenly father about your questions. I don't have them. But I don't assume there is not a Heavenly Mother.
So, why don't you go and leave your basement, get a real job and meet some mormons in the everyday world. Might improve your negative outlook on life. |
|
I noticed you are not willing to answer my question. Why is that?
Certainly there an a large number of religious blogs on the net where you can banter/slander/debate/blabber instead of on a political blog.
I will ask again - how does the theological belief that there is a Heavenly Mother effect at all how somebody would fulfill their political office duties? How would that alter decision making in any way?
|
|
Romney helps McCain in the key state of MI which by itself is quite significant, but he also helps in MN, WI, NV, CO and other western purple states, including CA. If Obama has to put money into the west to compete, that's money he can't spend elsewhere. Good for McCain to say he wants to work CA, WA, and OR.
My view is that there are very few rabid anti-Mormons, and few rabid Romney haters who will refuse to support McCain if Romney is VP. There are some on this blog, but you can count them on one hand. They don't amount to a hill of beans in the big picture.
There are many, many more conservatives who will get excited by a Romney choice. McCain knows it, the polls show it. I just don't buy that folks will stay home and let their country go to hell over a Mormon.
Romney is by far the best choice for McCain for a host of already well-known reasons. Let's get to work and do the best we can with the hand we're dealt.
|
|
http://www.freestrongamerica.com - "About Us" has six core principles.
Let's discuss them.
The first is
- Our military superiority cannot be compromised.
Second is
- Our government must remain federalist and governing should be conducted as close to the people as possible.
Third is
- Money and resources are best used when they remain in the hands of the people. A competitive America is one where taxes are low and government is small.
Fourth is
- Unleashing the power of free markets is key to a vibrant economic future.
Fifth is
- Culture makes all the difference in determining the strength of a nation. Our American values must be protected and nurtured.
Sixth is
- Government should be accountable and transparent.
Did you see the list of candidates besides John McCain that this PAC is supporting?
Let's get behind our underfunded GOP candidates and work for their election, including John McCain and whomever he selects as his VP. |
|
[Ben B on May 27, 2008 5:37 PM]"What does that have to do with a political view?"
What is "that"?-- i.e., what are you referring to?
"how does thie theological belief alter the way a person would fulfill their public office duties?"
I don't know-- how? Which theological belief(s) do you refer to?
Do you, like Qweenm, consider the FLDS apostates?
_Escape_
by Carolyn Jessop and Laura Palmer
http://www.amazon.com/Escape-Carolyn-Jessop/dp/0767927567
|
|
|
I saw these on the site. Loved them, an support them. One thing that Romney has been addressing for the past while or so, is the need to energy independence. AND along with that, being the leader in innovation and invention in the energy field. I think this PAC, above all others, will help those candidates that reflect the conservatve values. I've noticed even the GOP 'leaders' are starting to line up and have figured out that dancing with the devil is not always a good thing. We Conservatives need to be the leaders, not the followers or even the complainers. |
|
|
If Romney accepts the VP spot with McLaim, he would be proving that he does not have what it takes to be president. McLaim is likely the most unqualified candidate ever fielded for the presidency. No - wait! Maybe he is second most unqualified. I forgot about Carter. Whatever, he is surely in the top five most unqualified. That's curious because that was is position in his graduating class from Annapolis - Fifth from the Bottom!!!!! |
|
Romney supporting McCain only proves his desire to keep the White House out of the hands of the far more dangerous candidates - Obama and Hillary. This is for the sake of the WOT and other major issues. McCain is not perfect, (Romney has repeatedly reminded us of his differences with him), but he's a far cry from being a Marxist as is Obama.
I do agree that it will be difficult for Romney to retain idealogical purity while defending McCain, but he has framed it well so far, saying Obama and Hillary are worse. And they are. Those who say they cannot see the difference aren't looking.
|
|
Are you that childish that you cannot discern what theological subject I was referring to or are you just dodging the point all together?
I asked and reposted it again. Did you ignore that one as well?
I will post it a third time just so it doesn't pass by you.
How does a theological belief that there is a Heavenly Mother effect a person's ability to fulfill their duties within a political office?
There are plenty of others that you have stated on here (sometimes partially truthfull) that have no bearing on a person's work ethics or political views, but I want to have your clarification on this one in particular.
|
|
|
|
Jacobs, Ethan. 3 March 2005. "Mitt Romney’s secret gay history!" _Bay Windows_
http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=columnists&sc=the_ro mney_files
Romney also continued Weld’s tradition of appointing openly gay people to key positions in his administration. One of his first cabinet appointments was Daniel Grabauskas, who Romney chose to serve in his cabinet as secretary of the Executive Office of Transportation and Construction.
The new governor’s transition team also included several openly gay people, including Grabauskas, former lieutenant governor candidate and current president of the national Log Cabin Republicans Patrick Guerriero, and former Mass. Log Cabin president Mark Goshko.
Other gay Romney appointees include John Wagner, commissioner of the state welfare department, Mitchell Adams, executive director of the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative, and Jonathan Spampinato, a member of Romney’s Diversity and Equal Opportunity Council. Two out lesbian appointees were fired by the governor shortly after getting legally married to their same-sex partners: Ardith Wieworka, former commissioner of Child Care Services, who was let go last summer, and Katherine Abbott, former commissioner of the Department of Conservation and Recreation, who was asked to resign last month after her department was blamed for not adequately clearing sidewalks
==
He [Romney] offered political and financial support to two openly gay Republican candidates for state representative in 2004, Richard Babson in the Eighth Suffolk District and Michael Motzkin of the Ninth Essex District, who both lost. Both candidates were promoted as part of the Romney Reform Team.
Romney's stellar judicial appointments
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9380a1ac-650e-4e62-a8a 8-cc86e06ca2a1%40q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com
|
|
Romney may help with Michigan; although, it's certainly very questionable whether that help would be enough to turn the state. Nevada and Utah are probably pretty solid for McCain anyway.
However, I would be concerned how much Romney might hurt McCain in some of borderline states: Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, Missouri and such. You've got a lot of evangelical/social conservatives who (despite protestations from the chatterati never embraced Romney and were actually turned off by him. Moreover, you've also got a lot of swing vote Reagan Democrats, working class folks with something of a populist economic view and conservative social views. This group will definitely be turned off by Romney.
Of the others, Jindal needs to season a bit longer, Palin needs to ascend into national prominence a bit more, Pawlenty is interesting, but I'm not sure what he brings outside of Minnesota, similar story with Crist in FL.
In terms of where I think this election will primariy be fought, in the heartland, and northern edge of dixie, Huckabee probably brings in the most votes. That said, I'm not sure the establishment GOP and fiscal conservative purist/country club set would accept a McCain/Huckabee ticket. Regardless, I think the recent vote tally's show Huck would probably bring substantial votes in Virginia, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Missouri and such.
It'll be an interesting election season.
JP |
|
[Qweenmumof7 on May 27, 2008 6:26 PM]"you need to ask your Heavenly father about your questions. I don't have them."
Is there a Heavenly Mother I can put my questions to?
If so:
Did she have sex with God the Father?
If so:
Is Jesus one of their children?
Is Satan one of their children?
"why don't you go and leave your basement"
[Qweenmumof7 on May 16, 2008 7:44 PM]"Same with Huckie. If he talks like a democrate
Walks like a democrate
tastes like a democrate
it's a democrate."
How would you classify Romney?
/////////////////////////////////////////////////
2002 Romney: I'm moderate, with progressive views-- see 0:50 on
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbYdATLV6ZE
Romney: "R" stands not so much for "Republican" as it does for reform: 9:14
You Can't Trust Mitt Part 1: Abortion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNbGNHaNFtw
Romney wants government funding for (no doubt embryonic) stem cell research
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTKncJiVfYk
The Real Romney?
TOPICS:
....wasn't Republican during Reagan-Bush years
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9IJUkYUbvI
Romney for & anti- outlawing discrimination over sexual orientation
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=06bdb44e-7578-4dd6-833 c-8f0a00b1aa29%4025g2000hsu.googlegroups.com
Mark. 11 January 2008. "Romney in Seven Words"
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/mark_i/2008/jan/11/romney_in_ seven_words
Romney distancing self from Republicans
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbX4RkGlYnk&feature=related
|
|
|
|
|
|
[PC on May 27, 2008 7:44 PM]"McCain is not perfect, (Romney has repeatedly reminded us of his differences with him)"
Nicholas, Peter M. 6 January 2008. "Mitt's anti-McCain ads tax credibility" _The Boston Herald_
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view.bg?arti cleid=1064762
Romney: McCain's bill gives, and doesn't give, amnesty to illegals
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RtlC4g96ck
Democrats For Romney
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiCqxKLIVDY
Medved
http://michaelmedved.townhall.com/columnists/MichaelMedved/ 2008/01/08/will_the_gop_contenders_break_their_suicide_pact
Mitt Romney's saturation attack ads (played every
few minutes in Iowa and now in New Hampshire)
have not only poisoned the campaign with
mischaracterizations of the records of his
opponents, but also set the agenda for horribly
unenlightening and awkward debates that harmed
all the candidates, very much including Romney
himself.
Romney attacks Huckabee again with false and misleading claims
http://www.newsweek.com/id/80949
More Mitt Malarkey
Romney repeats misleading claims about McCain's stand on immigration
http://www.factcheck.org/more_mitt_malarkey.html
|
|
All of you idiots on this blog are so very obvious that your marxist leader, Sore A- - is paying you big bucks to tear down Mitt! Mitt is
the only man in our country that has the intellegence, professionalsim and knowledge to run our country, and that scares the sh- - out of all of you. At 66,Inever thought I would be
witness to so many citizens in our country void of intelligence selecting three totally inept people to run for president. |
|
|
God fearing, yes. Decent? nope. |
|
No, I don't think Huck is decent. He stands alone in that he was the only GOP candidate who wasn't a decent man.
He lies, he released dangerous criminals, he's corrupt. He is jealous, greedy, and petty. And he is totally self-absorbed. Do I believe he loves his country? I don't really know because he is a fake when it comes to so many things in his life. |
|
Ok, how about releasing rapists who 'found jesus' in prison, only to rape again.
Or, how about... registering for 'wedding gifts' 30 years after your marriage, to get around the Arkansas gift laws?
How about we go for the painting of the dear man?
That's just a start. |
|
Right. Rose glasses. I get it.
but I guess the ethics violations are just smoke and mirrors?
I don't hate huck. I don't respect him. Viva la difference. |
|
|
of how to succeed in the whitehouse...don't ya think that someone who is successful in private life could also be successful in the whitehouse? Romney is a can-do guy. He gets things done. He tackles challenges that others shrink from. I would love to see what he could do to fix Washington. He's brilliant, understands complex issues, works to find common ground when the naysayer's attack, is a great role model, with a beautiful family, and a gracious and good heart. I know that he gets things done. I want that for my country. Time to stop talking about the problems and take action instead. All that and he'll do it out of love for his country, not to be paid by taxpayers. What a deal! Its not personal, its about his resume. Why settle for less? It would be substantially less with most of the others, and slightly less with the rest. One does his country a disservice when he chooses a less-than-capable alternative. That goes for you McCain. I want Mr. Fix it. |
|
Apparently, there are a great many misconceptions about Mormons. If anyone has ever read the Book of Mormon or studied Mormon history, they would learn that this scripture was written over 1,000 years ago and only translated into Englizh not originally written in the 19th century.
In terms of evidence about the religion, there is plenty of it in South America. The pyramid ruins, much of the ancient culture, and even some of the ancient religious beliefs of the Aztecs and Incans were similar to that spoken of in the Bible. This is because the Book of Mormon talks about a family who came out of Jerusalem at about 600 BC and travels to the Americas. They also talk about the Great White God called Quetselquatal coming to them and establishing a church with twelve desciples.
|
|
Of course he's a LIAR and a Mormon which explains why some either can't or don't want to see him as a LIAR. However, that doesn't change what he is.
Romney is not an acceptable choice for VP. Should Romney be on the ticket, McCain would lose my support quicker than Huckabee (I previously contributed to his campaign) can utter a totally inappropriate comment in public.
I know plenty of other people who will stay home if Romney is on the ticket. That would not be good for McCain who needs Florida. Crist wouldn't get us off the couch either. |
|
SM: When What We Know Ain't So
JoeB131, would if surprise you that the description of Kolob and other governing stars and the fact that Earth is one of the furthest out from Kolob a star, a burning sun, describes the universe before telescopes.
Poke fun at that if you wish, It comes from Abraham who lived in Egypt before Christ that had no formal schooling, that would compare to yours.
It was translated by the seer, Joseph Smith before telescopes could see beyond our solar system,, so where does your knowledge come from, if science is confirming this reality even today?
"
Me: Guy, I've been over this on other threads. The "Book of Abraham" was in fact a pagan Egyptian funerary scroll from 2000 years later than Joseph Smith (dum=dum=dum-dum-dum) said it was. It was recovered, properly translated by people who can actually read Egyptian, and put in its proper context. In short, he made it up.
|
|
OHM Fantsizes about an autumn Saturday with JoeB131
Can you imagine how angry JoeB131 must get whenever the BYU football team is playing a game on television ?
I can just see him screaming at the tv, "Get 'dem Mormons ! Yee-hawww !" as he cracks open another Pabst Blue Ribbon and then yells his lunch order to his live-in girlfriend who is busy slaving away in the kitchen, "Darlin', make me a sandwich---but please don't put any salt on it, because salt makes me think of Utah !"
Me: Actually, I don't watch football. It bores me.
Also, I don't drink beer, I drink wine, usually while reading a good book and listening to classical music.
I usually don't put salt on my food because sodium is bad for you.
|
|
CG;Mormons - Part 1
Apparently, there are a great many misconceptions about Mormons. If anyone has ever read the Book of Mormon or studied Mormon history, they would learn that this scripture was written over 1,000 years ago and only translated into Englizh not originally written in the 19th century.
In terms of evidence about the religion, there is plenty of it in South America. The pyramid ruins, much of the ancient culture, and even some of the ancient religious beliefs of the Aztecs and Incans were similar to that spoken of in the Bible. This is because the Book of Mormon talks about a family who came out of Jerusalem at about 600 BC and travels to the Americas. They also talk about the Great White God called Quetselquatal coming to them and establishing a church with twelve desciples."
Any respectable historian or archeologist would probably bend over laughing at that statement.
Here's a great site, written by an Ex-Mormon, about the numerous anarchronisms and plagarism in the Book of Mormon, proving it was a product of 19th century writing.
http://packham.n4m.org/linguist.htm#INTRO
WARNING: The proceeding link may actually cause Mormons to doubt their cult and start thinking for themselves, which would be a new and exciting experience.
|
|
[PC on May 28, 2008 12:37 AM]"I don't think Huck is decent. He stands alone in that he was the only GOP candidate who wasn't a decent man.
He lies"
[prozacstan on May 28, 2008 6:55 AM]"Romney is a tall, dark and handsome LIAR
....
I know plenty of other people who will stay home if Romney is on the ticket."
Romney is a big liar!
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.republicans/msg /798c5314480d0328
3 February 2008. serial liar Romney claims NRA endorsement-- again
http://race42008.com/2008/02/03/romney-flips-on-guns/
Kelly, Chris. 7 January 2008. "Mitticisms: 'Amnesty'"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-kelly/mitticisms-amnest y_b_80162.html
....Romney ....he's the one candidate who's ready to
mislead on Day One.
Imagine if Mitt Romney sold you something -- let's
say some land in Glengarry Glen Ross -- and you
were trying to get your money back, and he started
pulling this... on you.
Romney: McCain's bill gives, and doesn't give, amnesty to illegals
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RtlC4g96ck
Mitt Romney: From Flip-Flop To See-Saw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up60e-ygalU
Some Mitticisms appear in:
Luo, Michael. 22 December 2007. "Romney Learns That 'Facts Are Stubborn Things'" _The New York Times_
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/22/us/politics/21cnd-romney. html?hp
Allott, Daniel. 20 December 2007. "Romney, get real about your abortion record"
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7482.html
Romney lacks credibility on *anything*
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=99a7821a-ebdb-4003-b0a 4-5c849369e91c%40i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com
|
|
Yes, yes, I know all about the fact that Missouri has had a bad case of Political Correctness and rescinded the extermination order, which was never really carried out to start with. And I know that a bunch of sissy Alderman in Chicago got the Illinois Legistlature to apologize for shooting Joseph Smith.
Now all we need to do is get the Mormon Church to denounce Brigham Young for instigating the Mountain Meadow Massacre and take his name off the university... |
|
Once again, QM7 brings up Wayne Dumond "finding Jesus" and Huckabee releasing him as an excuse to bash the guy.
let's set the record straight. Dumond was convicted of raping a cousin of Bill Clinton, after she had identified two other men as her attacker. Authorities in that county turned a blind eye when Dumond was castrated by unknown assalaints (The sheriff later kept his testicles in a jar as a trophey) and burned down his house. He was convicted to life plus 30 years. Jim Guy Tucker reduced that 35 years, making him eligible for parole. He became a caus celebre for the far right wing, who thought he was a victim of the Clinton machine.
Huckabee did not commute his sentence. The parole board did, provided he leave the state. Yes, he went on to murder again, but was it because he was always a bad guy, or because 14 years in prison turned him into a monster? Who knows. The thing was that when he was paroled, he had a wife, a pastor, an employer and a warden all willing to vouch for him, and it still took another two years before he was released.
Of course, none of this gets through to QM7, who is enjoying her hate-high. |
|
[ConservativeGuy on May 28, 2008 3:08 AM]"In terms of evidence about the religion, there is plenty of it in South America. The pyramid ruins, much of the ancient culture, and even some of the ancient religious beliefs of the Aztecs and Incans were similar to that spoken of in the Bible."
Details?
[Lori on May 28, 2008 1:29 AM]"Romney.... tackles challenges that others shrink from."
To illustrate:
Lowry, Rich. 29 January 2007. "The Romney Speech"
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTU0NzEyZjIzMTI5Yz ZiYjgxMjY3MTM4YTIzMjY4NTA=
Here's my take: Put aside how rambling and unfocused it was. Maybe that can be chalked up to a bad night or fatigue. But to speak for 50 minutes or so and not to talk about the Iraq war before a conservative audience at a crucial moment in that war is bizarre and just wrong and almost offensive in my view. This doesn't seem like an oversight. He went out of his way to check off every conservative box-- except the one that is politically risky at the moment.
"I want Mr. Fix it."
What do you think of RomneyCare?
The New Big Dig. 21 May 2008.
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB121132884197208937-lM yQjAxMDI4MTIxMTMyMjE4Wj.html
Hailed at first as a new national model, the Massachusetts nonmiracle ought to be a warning to Washington. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are both proposing versions of RomneyCare on a national scale....
RomneyCare funds MA abortions, and is KennedyCare/ HillaryCare,
bottom section of
Huckabee vs. Romney
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.republicans/msg /b8874f14563f4df0
|
|
|
|
|
And I know even more who will be inclined to actually pull the lever FOR a McCain/Romney ticket. And some are not even mormon. Go figure. |
|
Besides the hard core Mormon supporters of Romney who seem to seek some kind of validation for their "faith", the other Romney supporter I see here is the "business Republican", who seems to think that if America were run more like Corporate America, it'd be a wonderful place.
So I have to wonder what planet these people are from, really?
Seriously, do most of you think your boss or his boss is that smart, where you'd want him to have more control over your life than he already has? I've worked for four corporations since leaving the Army in 1992, and not a one of them did I see leadership that really impressed me. One company, I saw the owners actually run into the ground because of greed and incompetance.
But you tell people that "Romney is a successful businessman" and apparently, they'll ignore the fact that he believes the Moon is made of green cheese. |
|
I have read some of your posts and admired you for standing up for your guy Huckabee, even though I am amoung the group who has little respect for him. I read you to be sincere and thoughtful.
I invite you to go back and read JoeB's writings. The very fact that you seem to be agreeing with him loses the respect I have had for you - "their hate" you say? Do you have any idea who JoeB is?. The only other person who ever agrees with him is his wife Stalkethizer. This puts you in fairly precarious company. |
|
How about actually talking about the merits of the post. I set the record straight about the lies the Kool-Aid drinkers have been spreading about Huckabee and Wayne Dumond. Address the issue.
Seems like for a guy who is determined to "ignore" me, you spend a lot of time attacking me or being offended by what I say. Now why is that, Princess?
|
|
1) Sarah Palin- Articulate, sympathetic, charismatic, and a good draw to a lot of women who might be upset that Hillary was cheated out of the nomination.
2) Mark Sanford- Strong with evangelicals, doesn't have Huck's baggage.
3) Mike Pawlenty- Strong in the Midwest, could pull MN and WI into the Red column. |
|
Palin is busy wih a new baby.
Why do we need a evangalist? Aren't they cult members in your view?
Pawlenty. Not well known. Brings only one state in, if that. Uphill reelection for him.
So next? |
|
I get it. Your unemployed!! yOU'VE GOT YOUR HAND OT FOR FOOD!! You and Synth hang in mom an dada basement, making stuff up, and catalouging every keystroke made on every TH board! Which is why your so down on coroporations. My sweet and wonderful husband works for a corporation. Each Friday, he brings home a paycheck, which we pay for our home, our gas, clothing, donations to charities and church, and other things we want and need. Heck, we even save some of that money in big bank.
I run my own business, and deal with corporations every day. I make a pretty decent income for about 10 hours of week a work. Yea, we (and they) like Romney. LDS or Baptist. He's the best guy for the job that could be his, should something happen to McCain. |
|
Not sure why you are obsessed w/ my personal life... I am gainfully employed, at least for the moment, but the way the economy is going under the current leadership... My thought on Corporations is that they are good for what they do, but it's not a place to look for leadership.
Hint, the Current Occupant came from the private sector. (Sorry, Bush is a moron. He's probably destroyed this party.)
As far as Palin, I don't expect her to be a Cheney level-vice President. We should make damn sure that never happens again. She could take care of her baby and be a president in training, like Bush-41 under Reagan or Al Gore.
Is Mark Sanford an evangelical?
|
|
Really, the reason Dilbert is so funny is because its so true. Most workplaces are like that, in a slightly less exaggerated way.
My guess is Dilbert is probably another of those things QM doesn't let into her house. |
|
Yo said he was ok with that community. Dont they only vote for their own? That's what you led us to believe. After all you are the expert (although a possible unemployed expert). I serioulsy doubt you or synth have any gainful means of collecting legit paychecks. After all, it takes time to spew your hate and misinformation here.
Bush came from Texas Gov. Mansion. He also had pvt. sector experience. But you knew that, dident you. You know everything, so you say.
I'll be out most the day. I have errends to run, and the pool to fill. |
|
Synth's answer to all questions put to him:
"I dunno."
I for one don't know if I want Romney damaged by aligning himself with McCain.
As for people who won't vote for a Mormon, I say that if you want to know more about them ASK THEM.
If you want to know about basketball, ask someone who knows and loves and plays the game. The same goes for any subject. Look at how the people TRY to live their lives. You won't find perfect people, but may find someone who believes and wants the same things that you do. |
|
You are right, I spend much too much time reading your drivel. It's kind of like driving past a car wreck and you know you shouldn't look but find yourself sneaking a peak. It's just hard for me to imagine anyone as ignorant, bigoted, and proud to display abundant stupidity. It's like watching a gorilla pick his nose at the zoo.
I should move on, though, you are right. |
|
Medved calls Romney's family the most appealing and wholesome family in American political history.
I agree!! |
|
QM7:Dont know if standford is evangalica.
Yo said he was ok with that community. Dont they only vote for their own? That's what you led us to believe. After all you are the expert
Me: I know he's a strong conservative who doesn't make them mad. Wiki doesn't specify what church he goes to. My point is that McCain is already on thin ice with Evangelicals, he needs to patch up that breach.
QM7:(although a possible unemployed expert). I serioulsy doubt you or synth have any gainful means of collecting legit paychecks. After all, it takes time to spew your hate and misinformation here.
Me: Actually, I have a job that gives me computer access all day... This is my equivlent of a smoke break...
QM7: Bush came from Texas Gov. Mansion. He also had pvt. sector experience. But you knew that, dident you. You know everything, so you say.
Me: Right, he's had the exact same qualifications as your pinup boy... and he's been a freakin' disaster. I kind of doubt there'll be a GOP left after him. At least, there'll be a decade of rebuilding.
|
|
I am no more a bigot against Mormonism as I am a bigot against those idiots who claim that 9/11 was an inside job. being against a lie is not being a bigot.
Just because you call the lie a religion, doesn't make it any less a lie. |
|
He has NEVER acted conservative during his ONLY actual experience in office. He was a completely LIBERAL Governor of that state. I wouldn't imagine that at any time of his life he ever acted conservative.
He can say he is all he wants. But I think actions speak louder then words. Hillary Clinton Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are liberals by action. He cant convert? Sure he can but he needs to prove himself before he should be trusted. The man converted to social and governmental conservativeness only once he started running. You can say hes a nice guy you can say hes really changed, I say he ran the most liberal state as a liberal, and I don't think he changed, and if he changed who do we know he wont change again.
Ronald Reagan took 20 years to go from Democrat Actor to Republican President. Not 20 weeks. |
|
It's not just mormons supporting him. If that were the case, he'd be hanging out in Mass, or his new digs in LaJolla.
Try this website:
Evangalicalsformitt.com
|
|
So - to be clear.......
You state these theological beliefs as if they are supposed to disqualify Romney from being a good candidate, supposedly making so that he could not fulfill his duties in an office of Pres. or VP, and then turn around and three times state that you cannot give a reason why they would disqualify him. Hmmmmm.......
Sounds like anti-mormon hatred to me. It is a political blog. If you cannot tie the subject matter that you are spewing out to some semblance of a political point then you should crawl back to your anti-mormon blogs and fester with the rest of the hatemongers.
At least JoeB puts some valid points forward every once in a while*****
*****This is in no way a validation or justification of JoeB's name calling and religious jabbing. When he actually types something re: politics it has some merit. Then he puts himself in the crapper by going back to his own anti-mormon roots with little to no bearing on why those beliefs/practices would cause a public officer to not be able to fulfil their duties. |
|
o.h.m. writes: '...a premise which holds that because Mitt Romney believes in the Book of Mormon, he therefore cannot be trusted to make sound decisions in the political arena----well, such a thesis simply does not hold water.'
ME: Right. That would be a non_sequitur.
We'd have to see evidence that Romney was laboring under cognitive dissonance, in order to come to such a conclusion. There would have to be evidence that Romney knows of the erroneous matters and in spite of that knowledge chooses to believe it anyway.
IOW, if he embraced what he knew to be factually and logically errant in Mormon beliefs, and did not experience cognitive dissonance, he would delusional. If he did experience cognitive dissonance, but repressed it, he would be in denial.
That Romney sucessfully made executive decisions over long periods of time, in a variety of venues, with no reports of irrationality, suggests that he is not experiencing debilitating cognitive dissonance.
If the accusations against Mormon beliefs, particularly logical, historical, and archaeological are indeed valid, it would appear Romney is unaware of the erroneousness, or considers the errant matters tangential to the Mormon faith. |
|
If Romney actually believes the tripe that is in the Book of Mormon, despite the overwhealming proof that Joseph Smith made it up, as proven by archeology, genetics, text analysis, it proves that he simply lacks the reasoning skills to make important decisions, like "Gee, do I believe these reports the CIA is sending me about Iran?" The ability to scrutinize one's beliefs is an indication of an analytical mind.
If Romney is in on the scam (as I suspect most of the leading Mormons are), then he's responsible for perpetrating a lie on otherwise good-natured people looking for salvation.
Of course, we'll never know for sure, because he steadfastly refused to actually discuss the issue of what his faith was at all, other than putting out some platitudes about the First Amendment. |
|
Joe,
You sound like one of 2 things. Either a "former" but disgruntled Mormon who is now of course "anti-mormon, or you are a typical evangelist who doesn't believe in "freedom" of religion. If you are not an evangelist, then you are "wrong". In either case, you are very narrow minded and prejudiced to anyone that has beliefs that differ from yours. That is why Huckabee would be a disaster as a V.P. or especially as President because of his narrow mindedness and religious prejudices. |
|
Actually, none of the above.
I was brought up Catholic, went to Catholic schools for 12 years. Was an agnostic for most of my 20's and early 30's, am reconnecting with my religious roots, but consider myself largely non-denominational.
I don't have an issue with Protestants, Evangelicals, Jews, Muslims or Bhuddists, even though their beliefs are very different than mine. I respect anyone who comes from a religious tradition and culture.
My issue with Mormonism is that is based on a lie.
I'm kind of nuetral on the issue of Huck as VP. (I voted for McCain in the primary, with my fingers holding my nose.) I think he could help McCain with Evangelicals, where he is weak, which is what happens when you denounce religious leaders as "agents of Intolerance". Then again, there are a lot of other evangelical politicians who don't have Huck's baggage.
The thing about Huck is that he's let the big secret out. That "social conservatives" are being given the short shrift by "economic conservatives" who don't have their best interest at heart. |
|
Hey Joe,
So what if I am wrong about that. You are wrong about judging Mormons because frankly, who are we to judge anyone. So you didn't learn that from your Catholic upbringing like you should have. "Only" God has the right to judge. And does it really matter what religion anyone running for office is? As long are they don't try to "judge" other religions. The only religion we should be wary of is the "radical" muslims like Al Queda and the Taliban who purpose is to convert or kill, and especially westerners. Huckabee is very much like Jimmy Carter in many ways and we saw what kind of a president he was...... |
|
Ronwik,
You are right on many accounts. But there is judging and there is disliking or disagreeing. There is a difference. We don't have to like or agree with everyone. What I meant on judging was assuming that ALL people of a specific religion are the same and bad. I suppose I was judging evangelists, but that is what is and has been done to Romney. He isn't a bad candidate or person simply because of his beliefs. Or to say who will go to hell and who won't. We have to choose our own candidates based on our own opinions. But of course we are not forced to vote either. If the whole country threw their arms up, then we might as well live in Cuba or the former Soviet Union where there is no choice of the people. The government would choose who would run the country. Thankfully, we haven't gotten to that point and hope to God we never do. That is the beauty of this free country. |
|
DV: So what if I am wrong about that. You are wrong about judging Mormons because frankly, who are we to judge anyone. So you didn't learn that from your Catholic upbringing like you should have. "Only" God has the right to judge. And does it really matter what religion anyone running for office is? As long are they don't try to "judge" other religions. The only religion we should be wary of is the "radical" muslims like Al Queda and the Taliban who purpose is to convert or kill, and especially westerners.
Me: So I go back to my earlier point. What if Mitt were a Scientologist who thought that Evil Space Lord Xenu put Body Thetans on Earth and they are clinging to our bodies makind us unhappy? I think we'd judge him to be nuts.
Well, Scientology + 150 years = Mormonism.
Equally nutty is the belief that Hebrews crossed two oceans, encounted a lot of animals and plants that never existed in the Americas while not encountering the ones that did, used technologies that didn't exist on either side of the ocean, and left no trace at all, and the only reason we know about these guys today is because an angel showed magic gold plates to a con artist who translated them looking through a stone.
I think that we'd judge anyone who believed that to be nuts, too.
|
|
Ok Joe,
You say you believe all other religions are true, but where is the "proof" of their beliefs? Religion is based on "faith" for all the other religions you stated were ok with you. Is there "proof" of the Virgin Mary, Jesus walking on water,etc, etc, etc. You for some reason hate mormons and their religion. Based on what some have told you or things you have read on the internet or in books, etc. Annnd....who are you to "judge" who is nuts and who is not? Have you done a psychological evaluation of mormons? The only religion that has been distorted in the original belief and seems nuts is radical islam when they believe that when you kill non-muslims, there are 72 virgins waiting in heaven for them. |
|
I'll tell you what is crazy:
A snake talked. A man lived to be 969 years old.
Some crazy guy built a big boat so he could take all the animals on it and live because a big flood was going to cover the whole earth(LOL)
A woman became a pillar of salt.
God commanded a man to kill his OWN son.
A donkey talks and sees an angel.
God talks out of a burning bush.
A stick becomes a snake. Water turns to blood. A giant body of water opens up magically. A man hits a rock and water comes out.
Don't have time for more right now. There is SO much more. I guess anyone who believes these unbelievable stories is a nutcase,Yes? |
|
|
|
MaineCon: 'He has been an extremely successful businessman -since when is that a negative in a party that's very basis is in capitalism and personal responsibility?'
ME: In terms of political narrative, it reinforces a stereotype Republicans want to avoid, viz, born to privilage, and got even richer (i.e. Steve Forbes, Nelson Rockefeller).
Generally its better if Republicans seek candidates who (like Reagan) were born to modest means (or even in poverty) and became sucessful. Horatio Alger stuff. Such candidates counter the stereotype that Republicans are the party of the Rich.
So, when they can't do that they pose in a facade. Dubya's love of NASCAR, and Texas drawel, and gunfighter's swagger. Bush-41's taste for pork rinds and country music.
Likewise, Democrats want to seek candidates not hostile to business or the military. Thus why they nominated Clinton in the 90s because he was a "New Democrat" that sucked up to Corporate America, bigtime.
And, in 2000, and 2004, they nominated Vietnam vets to counteract the narrative that they are anti-military. |
|
I am still waiting for Synth to discuss how the theology of having a Heavenly Mother has any bearing on a person's ability to work in a public position.
I think Hillplus brings up in more detailed subjects what I have tried to bring forth. Many religions believe things that could easily be "proved" wrong through a variety of branches of science.
You believe in God as you have stated JoeB. Give me emperical evidence of his existence then, some scientific proof that your religious beliefs aren't based on lies and scams. Scientists have been doing a grand job at trying to prove things that spit in the face of religion, ie evolution vs. creationism.
Once you can "prove" to me that your religious beliefs are not based on a bunch of lies then I will give you room to second guess and ridicule my religious beliefs. If you have none then you are somebody that just doesn't agree with things in another person's religion and want to target that religion for such things. An atheist is about the only type of person that would have room to talk here.
I believe those things that hillplus mentioned so according to you regardless of the theological beliefs that I hold that are different from mainstream Christianity - all Christians are untrustworthy because they believe a bunch of tripe. I don't follow that line of thinking but you can split hairs to fit your bias needs all you want. |
|
hillplus writes: jb
I'll tell you what is crazy:
A snake talked. A man lived to be 969 years old.
Some crazy guy built a big boat so he could take all the animals on it and live because a big flood was going to cover the whole earth(LOL)
(Snip snip)
Don't have time for more right now. There is SO much more. I guess anyone who believes these unbelievable stories is a nutcase,Yes?
Me: Yup, anyone who believes in these stories as other than allegory or myth is pretty nutty. The difference is that these events were handed down as oral tradition for centuries before someone bothered to write them down.
Let's take the flood. Do I think there was a worldwide flood that covered the whole world. Of course not, there's no scientific evidence for it. However, there is scientific evidence that flooding was common at the end of the last Ice Age, particularly in the region around the Black Sea (which was a fresh water lake before gigatons of water rushed in through the Dardenelles). This is confirmed by the fact that every culture in the region has a flood story- Deculion in the Greek, Gilgamesh in the Babylonian, etc. Something happened in pre-history that people remembered.
But you see, that's the difference, it isn't the miraculous aspects of the BOM that are silly, it's the mundane stuff, too. We know coinage, horses, elephants, wheat, etc didn't exist in the new world, so how could it be written about. It couldn't, unless it was plagarized from other works by a barely literate con-artist.
|
|
DV: You say you believe all other religions are true,
ME: No, I said that I respected their traditions.
DV: but where is the "proof" of their beliefs? Religion is based on "faith" for all the other religions you stated were ok with you. Is there "proof" of the Virgin Mary, Jesus walking on water,etc, etc, etc.
Me:The difference between the Bible and the Book of Mormon is we don't know where the Bible went hinky, or even if it did. Going back to my above example of the flood, obviously, there were floods, and oral tradition carry down the story of them for generations, until someone actually wrote the stories down. Some of it is myth, other parts are legends of actual events, but clearly, everyone involved was probably sincere. you don't have that kind of wiggleroom with Mormonism. Either Joseph Smith was a real prophet, or he was a despicable con man. Since there were contemporaneous accounts of his faith, most of them indicate that he was certainly the latter, people knew it at the time, and most people know it now.
DV: You for some reason hate mormons and their religion. Based on what some have told you or things you have read on the internet or in books, etc. Annnd....who are you to "judge" who is nuts and who is not? Have you done a psychological evaluation of mormons? The only religion that has been distorted in the original belief and seems nuts is radical islam when they believe that when you kill non-muslims, there are 72 virgins waiting in heaven for them.
Me: I would argue that John D. Lee slaughtering the "gentile" men women and children of the Francher Party in 1857 so he could get his own world to rule falls into the same category of nuttiness.
|
|
I hear and understand you argument about perception; however, I think I have more faith in the American people than you apparently do. I respect anyone who has risen from poverty and made a success of themself – it make for a compelling story, but hardly justifies giving that person an advantage over someone who was born in better circumstances just on that basis alone.
We’re obviously talking Mitt Romney here. While he was not born into poverty, his parents did not just supply him with success. He gave of himself for two years as a young man to serve as a missionary for his church in France (I believe). There was no compensation for that service. He graduated with an MBA and a law degree simultaneously from Harvard. His daddy did not buy that education – Mitt worked hard for it, and he excelled.
I think the biblical parable of the talents is applicable. It doesn’t matter what you were given, it just matters what you did with what you had. I believe Mitt’s story is as compelling as someone who was born poor, and I look at how he plans to fix government and look at how he has fixed companies, the Olympics, etc. in the past. I believe that is what the American people also is concerned about.
|
|
Ben: I think Hillplus brings up in more detailed subjects what I have tried to bring forth. Many religions believe things that could easily be "proved" wrong through a variety of branches of science.
You believe in God as you have stated JoeB. Give me emperical evidence of his existence then, some scientific proof that your religious beliefs aren't based on lies and scams. Scientists have been doing a grand job at trying to prove things that spit in the face of religion, ie evolution vs. creationism.
Me: And it's the fault of religion that it is unable to adapt in the face of scientific proof to the contrary. The Garden of Eden is a fairy tale, plain and simple. Does it diminish the overall message of Christianity that it is? No. (Incidently, the Catholic Church accepts evolution as true. So do a lot other sensible religions.)
BenG: Once you can "prove" to me that your religious beliefs are not based on a bunch of lies then I will give you room to second guess and ridicule my religious beliefs. If you have none then you are somebody that just doesn't agree with things in another person's religion and want to target that religion for such things. An atheist is about the only type of person that would have room to talk here.
Me: The point is not "can you prove the miracles", it's "Can you prove any of it." I can't prove Jesus performed miracles, and frankly, I don't care if he did. I can prove he existed (biographies appearing within a generation of his death, mentions in pagan sources of his existence). I even grant that some of the stories were embellished in oral tradition before being written down. Heck, we can even point out that Luke and Matthew give different geneologies of Jesus, and both through Joseph, who wasn't his father.
The difference with the BOM is that you can't prove any of it, and there is substantial evidence Smith made it up.
|
|
Ben: I believe those things that hillplus mentioned so according to you regardless of the theological beliefs that I hold that are different from mainstream Christianity - all Christians are untrustworthy because they believe a bunch of tripe. I don't follow that line of thinking but you can split hairs to fit your bias needs all you want.
Me: The difference is, we didn't catch Moses making up the story of the flood. We did catch Smith making up the Book of Abraham, Mormon, etc. It's one thing to believe in improbable stories as a matter of faith, it's another to believe outright fraud after the con man has been caught.
|
|
The term I used was Morons not Mormons, anyone of any religion can try for the presidency, if he can convince the people to give him the plurality of the electoral college he can be president.
That said hes a liberal in actions. No more David Souters. If you like empty promises vote Obama. Or McCain, or Romney. None of them are actually a conservative. Sure they make lots of promises, but their actions say different.
I never said only Mormons fall for silly snake oil salesmen, just look at the Obama loonies. That said, if your going to blindly put your faith into someone who's track record should make your stomach churn. Then my friend your just as loony as the Obamaites. If his campaign ads won you over or you just think that (other)Mormons are good people. Ads lie, and Orrin Hatch is good people Mitt Romney is Liberal people. His track record speaks louder then his words. Thats why that Moron McCain won. |
|
There is more evidence than you think regarding the Book of Mormon. It is to be found largely within the text of the book itself.
If you go to south America today you will find that there are literally thousands of ruins that have not been uncovered. Hills that rise up where there should not be hills. I believe that there is evidence that has not been uncovered.
I also believe that they will not likely be uncovered because a testimony of the BOM is not to be had in the arm of flesh. It is through the Holy Ghost which is the comforter and the final arbiter of truth. It is partly to protect those such as JB that this is the case. Where much is given, much is required.
You see, even if our Lord himself came up to certain souls, they would not believe.
I believe because I have received a witness. Unfortunately that is not transferable.
Each must find out for themselves.
All this still doesn't really have bearing on whether or not Romney would be a good VP. His religion might make him a better person, though.
|
|
and that gravity still works - events I cannot prove into existence by using logic - yet I do know their reality.
The only sure way of "knowing" the truth of spiritual matters is by the witness of the Holy Spirit. He (The Holy Ghost)testifies of truth and of Christ who is the author of all truth, our God and King.
One way to obtain a witness of the Spirit is by having an open heart and by keeping the Savior's commandments so that we might be in tune to recognize, and not dismiss, spiritual promptings with our ever present rationalizings, intellectualizings, or by being a light unto ourselves (pridefulness, for example).
And you have to ask for that witness.
The humble story of a young teen age boy asking God which church to join and praying in faith as James directs is the real story of Joseph Smith. His is a story of unusual faith. You err when you inject your own biases into his simple declaration of what he experienced and slander his name in your ridicule of what you don't believe.
Remember faith has the power to move mountains.
Millions of us all over the globe have read his account of the First Vision and have rejoiced that the heavens are again opened. That is also the good news.
At the very least he falls in the category of a religious reformer, striving to bring people closer to the original doctrines of the Savior as taught in the Old and New Testaments.
As LDS people we honor the work of all the people who preserved the manuscripts and passed them down so that eventually, when the printing press was invented, the Bible is available around the globe. We have much to be grateful for to have the wisdom of ancient prophets and the letters of the New Testament with its first hand accounts of the Savior's teachings and ministry.
JoeB. Please be respectful of my faith and all faiths. Joseph Smith was not a con man, that I know.
|
|
So I feel like I need to make sure that your statements are understood clearly. You are saying that a majority of Christian believers have been duped into believing a story such as the Garden of Eden, right? So if they are all stupid enough to believe in such a thing why is all of the vitreal left to the LDS people?
I don't understand why to you duped isn't duped for everybody. Everybody has been tricked by years of story telling according to you. Why aren't the millions of Christians being persecuted by you using the very same logic that you use to ridicule Mormons? Not that I am recommending it - I would much prefer you note that religion and religious people have beliefs that are "difficult" to believe and understand and some don't want to do so and just leave it at that. I am merely pointing out your bias towards one group of people that when using your same arguments it can be pointed at millions of others around the world. |
|
|
Wise Woman, You have me singing with your wonderful title. |
|
I appreciate your stance on it. And to a point I agree, but I do want to wait for Synth to actually address the point that has been asked of him. To this point he has not been able/willing to answer my question.
As for JoeB - I don't think he is a complete waste of time. I actually get a kick out of some of his posts. Others I could definately do without when he gets childish and starts name calling and labeling, but at times it is useful for me to talk with him in order to understand the mind of a "proof"ist, somebody that has to have visual/physical proof of an existence of something in order for it to be real. Yes he has said that I am stupid and ignorant and plenty of other names, but coming from him it doesn't hurt that much. I just try to get to the root of why he feels that way. I am starting to get a good basis for his negative bias towards the LDS people - although he still won't tell me about his "run-in" with that bad bunch of back-stabbing Mormons when he was younger. I think there is much more to that part. Can anybody lead me to the blog where he explained more about this story? He told me once that he had already explained in in another posting. He's making me work as the new guy to get my info about him. |
|
I can tell you what synth's answer is:
"I dunno"
That has been his answer to pretty much anything requiring him to think and not link. |
|
Mike Levitt and Jon Huntsman Jr. are both on the veep sort lists.
YOUR SURROUNDED!!! |
|
|
Funny that the next to the last man standing wasn't even mentioned in the article. We wont mention how he is winning all the major polls either. The CQ VP madness poll was a slaughter for Mitt and a huge win for the name that must not be spoken but we wont mention that either. To not mention the prime contender in the lead article would almost make one think there was some bias. Nahhh surely not. You may not like it but Huckabee won 8 states primarily the southern conservative ones and he placed 2nd in 15 states. He and McCain were respectful of each other through the campaign and became friends along the way. Huckabee still has a 65% approval rating in Ark according to McCain. I do not know if McCain will pick him or not but I think if he goes by the opinion polls which indicate the majority of the public loves Huck and if he looks at how Huckabee can insure the southern conservative states that McCain has to win he will. |
|
|
|
See, Ben?
With Synth, it's all link, no think.
|
|
Romney is hosting PRESIDENT BUSH at fundraiser in his Deer Valley home in ParkCity, utah.
Where's huckles? eating his fired squirrel by candlelight, I suppose.
Oh and Synth? Bush will be meeting with the Prophet and his counselers in the AM. Stick that on your keyboard and link it. |
|
MaineCon. writes: 'Pro I hear and understand you argument about perception...'
ME: Then I'm sure you can understand why Huckabee is such a compelling candidate, even if he hasn't persuaded you. Huckabee has negative perceptions too, but, he also has positives.
Even at NR, some of the writers who have been lacerating him at every turn for the past year (people like Rich Lowry) admit that he has the most natural political skills of the field this year, by far, and maybe since Reagan.
MaineCon. writes: '...a compelling story, but hardly justifies giving that person an advantage...'
ME: I'm simply saying that it falls into the personal negatives and positives category. Something to be evaluated.
Being a super-rich wall-street Republican is an advantage in the primary, but potential liability in the general election. It might make a diffeence one election, but not the next. All depends on the public mood, and the times.
MaineCon. writes: 'His daddy did not buy that education – Mitt worked hard for it, and he excelled.'
ME: Yeah, that work ethic is his best asset. Most middle-middle and lower-middle class people, I doubt, can identify with Mitt Romney as a person. Nor, can he relate to their situation. Just one of his many homes is worth more than most of them will make in a lifetime.
So, he has no personal narrative to share (that I'm aware of). He must share his work narrative. The risk is it makes him a little on the non_human side.
And, really, that was his foray into the Presidential field this year. Trying to sell himself on the basis of social conservatism was off the natural message, and thus invited all the more severe cricism. |
|
Ben: "JoeB
So I feel like I need to make sure that your statements are understood clearly. You are saying that a majority of Christian believers have been duped into believing a story such as the Garden of Eden, right? So if they are all stupid enough to believe in such a thing why is all of the vitreal left to the LDS people?"
I wouldn't use the word "duped", because by the time the authors of Genesis put it down on paper, it had probably existed as an oral tradition for thousands of years. As far as they knew, it was true, even though science has since debunked it. Most Christians I know accept that it is more allegory than fact.
On the other hand, Joseph Smith was clearly making it up. We know he lied about the Book of Abraham, and it isn't much of a stretch to conclude the BOM was a fake.
|
|
You guys are still falling for them...
Just click "Flag as Offensive" EVERY time JoeB131 and Synthesizer scuttle out from their dark places. Arguing with cockroaches is a total waste of time. (oops, my bad - my apologies to cockroaches for insulting them...)
Flagged as offensive...
|
|
As for JoeB - I don't think he is a complete waste of time. I actually get a kick out of some of his posts. Others I could definately do without when he gets childish and starts name calling and labeling, but at times it is useful for me to talk with him in order to understand the mind of a "proof"ist, somebody that has to have visual/physical proof of an existence of something in order for it to be real. Yes he has said that I am stupid and ignorant and plenty of other names, but coming from him it doesn't hurt that much. I just try to get to the root of why he feels that way. I am starting to get a good basis for his negative bias towards the LDS people - although he still won't tell me about his "run-in" with that bad bunch of back-stabbing Mormons when he was younger. I think there is much more to that part. Can anybody lead me to the blog where he explained more about this story? He told me once that he had already explained in in another posting. He's making me work as the new guy to get my info about him.
Me: Why do you really care? I mean, seriously, if I gave you the details of why I don't have a very good opinion of you people, that wuold make my logical complaints any less?
I also don't have a very high opinion of Moonies or Scientologists. I've never met a scientologists, and the few Moonies I've met seem like nice enough people, but that doesn't take away from the fact I think their beliefs are total bunk, too. |
|
|
|
Joe: Why do you really care? I mean, seriously, if I gave you the details of why I don't have a very good opinion of you people, that wuold make my logical complaints any less?
No - not at all. It would do just the opposite if it had any decent rationale. I want reasoning behind your angst towards LDS members and their religion. You brought up the snippet about your negative "run-in" but I am trying to figure out just how bad it was. It would help me feel like continuing to have open discussion with you knowing that there is at least justifiable reasoning for your disgust of us. Trying to say "why don't you just trust me on this one" as you have said to me in the past is a little hypocritical of you in my mind. You tell me not to "trust" in these things because of somebody being a "con man" by I don't know anything about you and I am supposed to just trust your words????
What I don't get is why you are so pained to let me know anything about it. I have given you full reasoning behind my desire to know. You have given me no reason for not wanting to share about it. Ball is in your court.
|
|
Thank you for making my points obvious and exponentially proving your lack of ability to rationally converse about politics.
I have made numerous full attempts to open a dialoge with you and you have just continued on your PETTY cut and paste & link way. Good on ya. Just know that you are doing more harm than good for your cause because of how ignorant and closed you are. Nobody wants to discuss things with people that obviously have an agenda that has nothing to do with what is being discussed.
Yeah you may get under some people's skin - but if that is your goal you certainly are not the kind of person that I or anybody else I know would be looking towards to help me see how a "good Christian" should act. The spirit of contention is of............Who?
I have said my peace.
|
| | |