Freedom Posted October 30, 2011 Posted October 30, 2011 http://religion.blog...ey-2/?hpt=hp_c1It is quite long but a good read.
Freedom Posted October 30, 2011 Author Posted October 30, 2011 for some reason it posted it twice. Oh well.
Mariner Posted October 30, 2011 Posted October 30, 2011 http://religion.blog...ey-2/?hpt=hp_c1It is quite long but a good read.Some interesting and less known background on Mitt Romney. He is clearly the most qualified among the Republican candidates. The fact that a Pizza executive who has never held elected office is ahead of Romney in the latest polls of likely Republican voters says more about Republican voters irrational dislike for one of their fellow travelers than it does about Romney's qualifications as a candidate.
oremites Posted October 30, 2011 Posted October 30, 2011 ... irrational dislike ...So you're saying there are no rational reasons for disliking Mitt Romney as a candidate?
CQUIRK Posted October 30, 2011 Posted October 30, 2011 Sorry, but I'm still supporting Ron Paul; any LDS Constitutionalist should, IMO. 2
thesometimesaint Posted October 30, 2011 Posted October 30, 2011 Mariner:Romney is the best of the republican candidates. I can't see me voting for Romney, and it has nothing to do with his religion. 1
Garden Girl Posted October 30, 2011 Posted October 30, 2011 Sorry, but I'm still supporting Ron Paul; any LDS Constitutionalist should, IMO.Hello CQUIRK...I'll try to say what I think without this becoming "political." While I like some of Ron Paul's views, others give me serious pause...GG
Garden Girl Posted October 30, 2011 Posted October 30, 2011 Mariner:Romney is the best of the republican candidates. I can't see me voting for Romney, and it has nothing to do with his religion.Hello TSS... Here we go again!! At least we agree on Romney being the best candidate... but I chuckle always about how we can generally be so far apart politically, and yet so in tune spiritually...Hope this finds you well and happy... all good wishes...GG
Freedom Posted October 30, 2011 Author Posted October 30, 2011 I don't know who is the best candidate, we won't know until they are in office. Anybody can sound good in a campaign. Of course, being in Canada I can't vote anyways. This article, however, is most significant in that it would never have been published 4 years ago. His running for office has changed how many in North America at least perceive the church and has made plane how vile the radical christian right truly is. The religious critics have been exposed in a sense. 4 years ago I find perhaps 2 or 3 positive articles about the church, this time around I find a new one practically every day.
Mariner Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 So you're saying there are no rational reasons for disliking Mitt Romney as a candidate?I am saying that when one looks at the relevant experience and accomplishments of the current stable of Republican candidates, Romney is clearly the best qualified. Evangelicals who basically believe as Romney does, but state that they would not vote for him because he is a Mormon, are acting against their own perceived self interests and are therefore acting in an irrational manner (IMHO).
Mariner Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 Mariner:Romney is the best of the republican candidates. I can't see me voting for Romney, and it has nothing to do with his religion.Same with me. On this we are in complete agreement.
Mariner Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 The religious critics have been exposed in a sense. 4 years ago I find perhaps 2 or 3 positive articles about the church, this time around I find a new one practically every day.Then there is the widely read article on Slate about Romney and his religion from the secular point of view (as compared to that being promoted by the Evangelical fundamentalists and their ilk on the far religious right).It is too bad that Romney is forced to defend himself from those with his same general worldview when there are plenty of moderates and even non-believers out there who need to be convinced if Romney is to have any chance at all.
Loran Blood Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 (edited) Mariner, on 30 October 2011 - 06:50 AM, said:Some interesting and less known background on Mitt Romney. He is clearly the most qualified among the Republican candidates. The fact that a Pizza executive who has never held elected office is ahead of Romney in the latest polls of likely Republican voters says more about Republican voters irrational dislike for one of their fellow travelers than it does about Romney's qualifications as a candidate.If this post is representative of where this (and so many others like it) is headed, I may as well just get my two cents in as quickly as possible before the thread goes completely over the cliff.The Founders established a nation under the (hopeful) assumption of a continually in-flux body of citizen statesmen that would remain in government for a relatively short time, and then return to private life to live under the laws they enacted. They did not desire the entrenched "political class" that has reemerged in the last century of which Mitt Romney is a textbook example (the "Rockefeller" Republicans so enamored of the same Leviathan state and bureaucratic apparatus as the Left, and who therefore can do no better historically than to "slow the rate of growth" of Big Brother)I see no reason to believe that Romney is any better qualified than Cain for no other reason than that he is already a political insider. It is long past the time at which that argument could have stood its own ground in any argument over qualifications. Further, Romney is fundamentally a liberal with conservative quirks and tendencies in some areas, as his various flip-flops on core issues, usually beginning on the Left, and then moving to the Right as political conditions change. There are enough of them, indeed, and on substantive issues, to give one pause and elicit concern, similar to Bill Clinton, as to just what Romney's "core" really is.In 2008, Romney took the traditional liberal Democratic position on convenience abortion on demand, by saying that while he personally opposes it, he wanted it to be "safe and legal" in the United States. That is, he is not going to touch Roe, as he made clear when he said that he would "protect the right of a woman to choose under the law of the country and the laws of the commonwealth." Later, as a presidential candidate, he called for the overturning of Roe. He's made similar flip flops/equivocations on other serious subjects, such as illegal immigration, gun rights, homosexual "rights," and health care, where he has alternated between doubling down in the defense of his own state managed health care debacle in Massachusetts, and criticism of Obamacare, which was modeled on his own plan.Further, he has critical deficiencies in some other core areas, including economics (Romney, in typical establishment Bush/McCain fashion has already taken his stand for the usual "targeted" tax cuts (middle class) and a 200,000 threshold for removal of interest and dividend taxes. I've heard nothing from Romney regarding what really needs to be done at this point: the abolition of the United States tax code and the introduction of a low, fair, flat tax that taxes all income only once at the source. I've heard no talk of substantial, permanent across-the-board cuts in marginal tax rates. As to the issue of AGW, a generational/cultural mass hysteria that he has apparently swallowed in toto, he allies himself, wittingly or no, with the Left, even though empirical science and public opinion on that matter have passed him by.Romney would clearly be a vast improvement over the present occupant of the White House, but he is a determined part of the managerial. technocratic Republican Ruling Class, as Angelo Codevilla uses the term, and a representative of the Nixon/Dole/Bush/McCain Republican establishment. He is a managerial elite, not a part of the contemporary classical liberal (conservative) intellectual and political movement.We have long ago moved passed the point at which this is in any sense adequate. Edited October 31, 2011 by Loran Blood
noel00 Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=fi&page=indexI don't imagine the secular humanists will be supporting him
Loran Blood Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 (edited) http://www.secularhu...n=fi&page=indexI don't imagine the secular humanists will be supporting himI'm chuckling a bit as I mentally retitled this book Physics of the Soul. Edited October 31, 2011 by Loran Blood
Freedom Posted October 31, 2011 Author Posted October 31, 2011 Then there is the widely read article on Slate about Romney and his religion from the secular point of view (as compared to that being promoted by the Evangelical fundamentalists and their ilk on the far religious right).It is too bad that Romney is forced to defend himself from those with his same general worldview when there are plenty of moderates and even non-believers out there who need to be convinced if Romney is to have any chance at all.yes, I read that one. I think the writer is misinformed but the distortion of our history is fair game for a journalist. Of course, the evidence is there to be interpreted according to your agenda. We are often guilty of this as well.
ldsfaqs Posted November 3, 2011 Posted November 3, 2011 It's always disappointing when I see conservatives be anti-mormons, or mormons be liberal.It makes me even more sad when I see conservatives bear false witness of one of their own.If Ronald Reagan was running for president today, these same conservatives would be belittling him.Romney's "flip-flops" are no different than anything Reagan did. Reagan flip-flopped on nearly all the same issues.Believe it or not, to be personally against abortion, but not willing to attack public freedom of it is not a flip flop, and is actually a constitutional position. Yes, it's not the highest and most correct position on it, but it's still based on a belief in freedom. There is nothing wrong with improving ones view on that issue, I did it, Reagan did it, and now Romney did it. Pro-Life groups wouldn't have honored Romney if he was so "pro-choice". Thus, it's wrong that conservatives misrepresent Romney in this way. All the other issues, the same thing but worse, because Romney is entirely misrepresented on the issues, not an actual flip-flop.Romneycare is nothing like Obamacare, one was a privat solution, the other government take-over. Romneycare also wasn't done entirely the way he wanted, he had to deal with liberals, and there are things he would have done differently. But, he saw a problem, and he worked to solve it. If he had remained there, he would have continued to try and improve it. His views on guns, illegals, etc. etc., again, more misrepresented malarkey.Romney is the most experienced, balanced etc. person we have. All the problems we have currently, he's the only man who's dealt with them. He knows about the health care issues, he knows about businesses going over seas to survive, on and on. If conservatives continue swallowing the anti-Romney propaganda and not elect him, then this country gets exactly what it deserves.Just really sad....
Grundelwalken Posted November 3, 2011 Posted November 3, 2011 The one advantage to having Romney in the WH would be that he might be more inclined to rely on the Spirit when making decisions. Maybe.
ldsfaqs Posted November 3, 2011 Posted November 3, 2011 (edited) Well, can't entirely rely on that given Harry Reid's discernment ability. Anyway, Romney's much more conservative than Bush was, and knows the Constitution much better, thus all this calling Romney a liberal or Obama lite, is simply bearing false witness, and shouldn't be done.The irony is that Chris Christie is also much more liberal than Romney, and so is Perry, yet both have been so-called conservative poster children of late.I mean, Perry supported Gore.... Can't get more liberal than that.Anyway, folks, stop misrepresenting people. Believe me, if the claims against Romney were actually valid, I wouldn't be supporting the guy. But, I've studied, instead of acting like anti-mormons and liberals and just believing the propaganda and out of context quotes, video, etc.If you all have a problem with people calling Brigham Young and the Church racist because Brigham said a couple of things, thus ignoring the full history of his words, views etc. as well as the Churches itself views etc., then don't do the same to Romney. Edited November 3, 2011 by ldsfaqs
Ares Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 Politics with no discernable Mormon content other than the names of the candidates. Avoid discussions of the relative merits of political parties.
Recommended Posts