Real Question
-
Heck and Shep apparently can't wait for a marxist statist take over, so they can be guaranteed a monthy welfare check
no matter what they do.
As for me, Give me liberty, and they can keep the change.
So many spoiled little silver spoon fed brats want the gov to be their nanny and benefactor.
You can smell the demand for gov living stipends over the internet.
-
Yes, Cal, you're the productive one. A true captain of industry. Me and Shep - just a bunch of moochers trying to live off the dole.
It's truly amazing to watch talking points get filtered all the way down through an imbecile.
-
Heck and Shep apparently can't wait for a marxist statist take over, so they can be guaranteed a monthy welfare check
no matter what they do.
As for me, Give me liberty, and they can keep the change.
So many spoiled little silver spoon fed brats want the gov to be their nanny and benefactor.
You can smell the demand for gov living stipends over the internet.
-
Heh.
Anyway Heck, I've been a Newt fan for years.
I think he's the brightest and possibly most capable guy in the room.
That said I'm not sure how he'd goven as the left really hates him.
Also admittedly he tends to shoot from the hip and leans toward hyperbole on occassion.
Still the left wing hate machine will be in full gear against whoever is there.
You didn't expect that when Obama got in?? After 8 years of Bush hate??
Come on now...
That said I've liked Romney for a long time as well and would have voted for him in the last primary had he been in when Ohio rolled around.
At the risk of sounding like a liberal <<GG>> I'd be glad to vote for him. Huntsman seems fine to me as well, but like you said he doesn't seem to have much traction as yet.
As far as doing whatever he thinks will help him win, well, lets not pretend it's not the standard MO.
Plus I don't care much about the key issues of either fringe.
But I don't take Cain or Perry or Bachman or Santorum very seriously.
I do like much of what Paul has to say, but he'd have to battle two parties if he won.
There's nobody who mirrors my own perspective out there.
WSS
-
Heh.
Anyway Heck, I've been a Newt fan for years.
I think he's the brightest and possibly most capable guy in the room.
That said I'm not sure how he'd goven as the left really hates him.
Also admittedly he tends to shoot from the hip and leans toward hyperbole on occassion.
Still the left wing hate machine will be in full gear against whoever is there.
You didn't expect that when Obama got in?? After 8 years of Bush hate??
Come on now...
That said I've liked Romney for a long time as well and would have voted for him in the last primary had he been in when Ohio rolled around.
At the risk of sounding like a liberal <<GG>> I'd be glad to vote for him. Huntsman seems fine to me as well, but like you said he doesn't seem to have much traction as yet.
As far as doing whatever he thinks will help him win, well, lets not pretend it's not the standard MO.
Plus I don't care much about the key issues of either fringe.
But I don't take Cain or Perry or Bachman or Santorum very seriously.
I do like much of what Paul has to say, but he'd have to battle two parties if he won.
There's nobody who mirrors my own perspective out there.
WSS
Heh.
Anyway Heck, I've been a Newt fan for years.
I think he's the brightest and possibly most capable guy in the room.
That said I'm not sure how he'd goven as the left really hates him.
Also admittedly he tends to shoot from the hip and leans toward hyperbole on occassion.
Still the left wing hate machine will be in full gear against whoever is there.
You didn't expect that when Obama got in?? After 8 years of Bush hate??
Come on now...
That said I've liked Romney for a long time as well and would have voted for him in the last primary had he been in when Ohio rolled around.
At the risk of sounding like a liberal <<GG>> I'd be glad to vote for him. Huntsman seems fine to me as well, but like you said he doesn't seem to have much traction as yet.
As far as doing whatever he thinks will help him win, well, lets not pretend it's not the standard MO.
Plus I don't care much about the key issues of either fringe.
But I don't take Cain or Perry or Bachman or Santorum very seriously.
I do like much of what Paul has to say, but he'd have to battle two parties if he won.
There's nobody who mirrors my own perspective out there.
WSS
While I'd concede that Newt at least has the experience and policy background to be president, you should hear people who know Newt - and even like Newt - say about Newt. He's one of, if not the, most self-involved, self-important man in DC. "He's all ego." It's like Jennifer Rubin (card-carrying Republican mouthpiece) said in the Post about this Fannie Mae stuff: "Gingrich is running for president, telling an improbable tale (he alone among a flock of hired guns wasn’t engaged in influence peddling?) and refusing to provide voters with material needed to assess his credibility. This is precisely the Gingrich so many Republicans recall — self-important, truth-shading and continually on the make to feather his own nest."
I'd be wary of falling in love with Newt. He's more interesting in listening to himself talk, and imagining everything he says is brilliant, than anything else. It's why Newt's staff used to have two boxes in their office - one huge box that said, "Newt's ideas" and a smaller shoebox that said, "Newt's good ideas." Until the other candidates started imploding and he became the #6 in the race to be "anyone but Romney", people were pretty convinced he was only running to stay relevant and to move his product. Much like Cain, he's very thin on organization in the key states. It never looked like a campaign designed to compete in anything other than the media.
You might remember that his entire staff quit his campaign a few weeks in because they realized that he wasn't really serious about running, and took his wife on a cruise for two weeks after he'd announced. For weeks he was also using his campaign speeches to plug his books and his Pope documentary.
Newt's also not going to beat Obama. I don't think any of them will, but a Romney-Rubio ticket probably has a good shot. The economy isn't going to go anywhere. It's starting to finally produce some decent numbers that sound more like a real recovery, but I think Europe is really going to sink it. They're headed for a prolonged economic slump, or worse, and everyone knows it. And if this deficit committee fails to reach an agreement, which looks likely, the markets may give up on our political system's ability to address our own problems, too.
Just a worldwide clusterfuck.
The only reason I can come up with for voting for Mitt Romney is that maybe a fresh start, with a sane Republican, would be able to create a coalition that could move much needed legislation forward. Democrats wouldn't block everything, or require 60 votes on every Senate bill, just to stop a president's progress and label him as ineffective. But those are mostly passing thoughts. You can't expect Mitt to be separate from his party even if he thinks that way.
Honestly, if Mitt took over, I'd be willing to bet you that he'd instantly start pushing for stimulus measures, and tax reform that finds more revenue. He's just call it an "infrastructure bank" or "the global competitiveness initiative."
-
"Advocate of civilization, defender of civilization, teacher of the rules of civilization, arouser of those who form civilization, organizer of the pro-civilization activists, and leader “possibly” of the civilizing forces."
Yes, that's Newt Gingrich, writing a note to himself. About himself.
-
Wow, heck that was quite insightful on Romney.
I agree with your rationalization.... however I will be totally honest.... I could never vote for a Mormon. There is something inherently wrong with people who tune out their logic to
agree with Joseph Smith and his rewriting of North American History. I could not vote for someone who has no position and is a literal talking head to what ever the wind blows at that moment.
Huntsmen would get a serious look from me as even Ron Paul (not as serious but a good look) neither will get the opportunity. Romney will win and I think your right they will go after the Florida Hispanic vote with Rubio as VP.
Obama will win again in a close race but he will win again because frankly he is better than anything the opposition has. I think we will see real growth in his second term now that stabilization has happened.
-
You know that Huntsman is a Mormon, too, right?
-
You know that Huntsman is a Mormon, too, right?
You know that Huntsman is a Mormon, too, right?
nope, I never bothered to dig deeper on him once I realized he had zero shot.... but that would have crossed him off my list. I know its not PC to have a anti Mormon stance but I do.
I have done or attempted to do some business in Utah.... and have met some really nice people who practice that faith. It just gives me all kinds of problems.
-
Sev I gotta admit that surprised me.
Would you feel that way about Jews, Muslims or Catholics?
Anyway many years ago Mormon missionaries stopped by and we actually had an ongoing dialogue. I even went to a LDS service. They all seemed like nice consevative folks without the fire and brimstone you might find elsewhere.
That's one realon I like Romney.
Anyway I'm not religious but I guess the jump from virgin birth to water into wine to healing the sick to the ressurection and then to showing up among the Indians isn't that much of a stretch.
And Heck, sure I figure Newt has a huge ego and never tires of expounding on whatever thoughts he has. So that makes for a big backlog of state3ments for the left to sift through.
But I don't suppose anyone with aspiratyions of power on the world stage is all that selfless.
I also assume that any politician will have members of the team go renegade.
Turncoats get a lot of attention and we all love attention.
Maybe that love of attention is one reason I like Newt.
But he'd be the one I'd pick if it were up to me.
If I was speaking for the Republican party I'd pick Mitt, if getting rid of Obama is the goal.
Actually I can live with Obama and a Republican house and senate.
Of course that'd be rough assumoing Obama wins by bringing out the liberal vote.
We'll see.
WSS
-
Wow, heck that was quite insightful on Romney.
I agree with your rationalization.... however I will be totally honest.... I could never vote for a Mormon. There is something inherently wrong with people who tune out their logic to
agree with Joseph Smith and his rewriting of North American History. I could not vote for someone who has no position and is a literal talking head to what ever the wind blows at that moment.
Huntsmen would get a serious look from me as even Ron Paul (not as serious but a good look) neither will get the opportunity. Romney will win and I think your right they will go after the Florida Hispanic vote with Rubio as VP.
Obama will win again in a close race but he will win again because frankly he is better than anything the opposition has. I think we will see real growth in his second term now that stabilization has happened.
Wow, heck that was quite insightful on Romney.
I agree with your rationalization.... however I will be totally honest.... I could never vote for a Mormon. There is something inherently wrong with people who tune out their logic to
agree with Joseph Smith and his rewriting of North American History. I could not vote for someone who has no position and is a literal talking head to what ever the wind blows at that moment.
And yet you're a Christian. How very ironic. I want to say that I really appreciate your honesty here, but damn is it ironic.
-
Wow, heck that was quite insightful on Romney.
I agree with your rationalization.... however I will be totally honest.... I could never vote for a Mormon. There is something inherently wrong with people who tune out their logic to
agree with Joseph Smith and his rewriting of North American History. I could not vote for someone who has no position and is a literal talking head to what ever the wind blows at that moment.
And yet you're a Christian. How very ironic. I want to say that I really appreciate your honesty here, but damn is it ironic.
And yet you're a Christian. How very ironic. I want to say that I really appreciate your honesty here, but damn is it ironic.
I didn't think Sev was a Chrisatian.
Am I wrong Sev?
WSS
-
@vaportrail said:
Oh damn. I must still be drunk. I thought I was quoting you, Steve. Okay, so that begs the question, sev, are you religious?
FWIW I'm not but I have no problem with those that are.
WSS
-
Well I apologize for the misunderstanding. So, I'm assuming that sev is okay voting for a Protestant or a Catholic, yet he won't vote for a Mormon because he thinks Mormonism is silly? I find that troubling. You could easily say the same about EVERY SINGLE religion.
-
Vapor,
No issues and Steve is correct I do not follow any major/minor religion, however you could classify science as a religion to some degree.
I understand your comment about the mainstream subsets of Christianity, I have made the mental decision that most people in the U.S. claim
one of the denominations or even Judaism. This is totally subjective and I dont expect people to agree, I happen to classify Mormonism as the same as say
Scientology. I would not vote for a Scientologist either... they are both to "cultish" and both are founded within the last 100 or so years by people we can get
decent insight on.
I agree this is subjective, but this is a personal choice on data about "founding" personalities versus thousands of years of individuals we dont have reliable or consistent data on.
I know some very nice people that are Mormon, but I also know some really nice people with felony records for some pretty heinous things. Its a personal thing but both of those would disqualify them for consideration based on subjective logic i apply to who should hold the most powerful position in the world
-
I agree this is subjective, but this is a personal choice on data about "founding" personalities versus thousands of years of individuals we dont have reliable or consistent data on.
So you'd rather put your trust into someone who has faith in something that there is hardly any reliable or consistent data on? The only difference between mainstream Christianity and Mormonism is the length of time that a large group has followed them. Jesus' movement was originally viewed as a Messianic cult, too.
So if a candidate believes in something that's more widely accepted, but has the exact amount of concrete evidence for their beliefs as one of these "lesser" faiths (none), you exempt them from that scrutiny?
-
I don't have a problem with people who vote or don't vote for someone based on their religious beliefs. Mostly because everyone does it, whether they acknowledge it or not. For instance, I almost certainly wouldn't vote for someone who has been taken in by Scientology. To me, it says something about their intellectual makeup and their gullibility. Some people view Mormonism in that same way. I don't happen to, but I can certainly see why people do. Mormonism requires people to believe in some things are not only utterly fantastical and surely improbable, but also things that are demonstrably false.
Joseph Smith was a con man. That seem 100% clear to me. The fact that people like Mitt Romney can't see that, or chooses not to see that, is a tad worrisome, yes. For me, it's not a disqualifier. But I can see why it would be for some people. And if someone like Sev wants to come to that conclusion, I think that's fine. As long as he doesn't believe in a religious test for office, he can assemble his voting priorities in whichever way he pleases.
And Vapor, I don't agree that Christianity and Mormonism are the same things. Do both require a belief in miraculous things that you or I believe never happened? Sure. But we know there was a Jesus Christ. We have a real good idea of what he preached about, how he died, etc. Even if you strip away the belief that he was divine, as Jefferson and many others have done, you're still left with some of the most sublime moral philosophies in human history, on which 2000 years of religious tradition have been based.
Mormonism is just something a guy with a wild imagination made up out of whole cloth. None of the people or places in the Book of Mormon have ever been shown to have existed. Some of the central tenets of the book have been proven to be false - or some might say fraudulent. It might as well be called "Harry Potter and the Golden Plates."
That's different.
-
And Steve, I hope you were watching This Week this morning. People from all over the spectrum were weighing in on what a fraud Newt is.
I particularly liked George Will's line about Gingrich's "absurd rhetorical grandiosity" before noting "he's not a historian" (he's really not - he couldn't even get tenure at an obscure college in Georgia) and then this: “It is an amazingly efficient candidacy in that in embodies everything disagreeable about modern Washington."
Even better was Krugman's line that Newt is "a stupid person’s idea of what a smart person sounds like."
I think they're both right. But have fun with Newt, the man who thinks describing each of his ideas as "profound" or "historic" makes them so. Honestly, have you even looked at his new Contract For America? For all his talk about "fundamental change" it's just a list of dusted off old ideas, nonsense, and useless slogans. There's absolutely nothing new in it. It could have come from Sarah Palin's Facebook page. And he thinks it's all groundbreaking stuff.
He's a truly strange man.
-
I don't have a problem with people who vote or don't vote for someone based on their religious beliefs. Mostly because everyone does it, whether they acknowledge it or not. For instance, I almost certainly wouldn't vote for someone who has been taken in by Scientology. To me, it says something about their intellectual makeup and their gullibility. Some people view Mormonism in that same way. I don't happen to, but I can certainly see why people do. Mormonism requires people to believe in some things are not only utterly fantastical and surely improbable, but also things that are demonstrably false.
Joseph Smith was a con man. That seem 100% clear to me. The fact that people like Mitt Romney can't see that, or chooses not to see that, is a tad worrisome, yes. For me, it's not a disqualifier. But I can see why it would be for some people. And if someone like Sev wants to come to that conclusion, I think that's fine. As long as he doesn't believe in a religious test for office, he can assemble his voting priorities in whichever way he pleases.
And Vapor, I don't agree that Christianity and Mormonism are the same things. Do both require a belief in miraculous things that you or I believe never happened? Sure. But we know there was a Jesus Christ. We have a real good idea of what he preached about, how he died, etc. Even if you strip away the belief that he was divine, as Jefferson and many others have done, you're still left with some of the most sublime moral philosophies in human history, on which 2000 years of religious tradition have been based.
Mormonism is just something a guy with a wild imagination made up out of whole cloth. None of the people or places in the Book of Mormon have ever been shown to have existed. Some of the central tenets of the book have been proven to be false - or some might say fraudulent. It might as well be called "Harry Potter and the Golden Plates."
That's different.
And Vapor, I don't agree that Christianity and Mormonism are the same things. Do both require a belief in miraculous things that you or I believe never happened? Sure. But we know there was a Jesus Christ. We have a real good idea of what he preached about, how he died, etc. Even if you strip away the belief that he was divine, as Jefferson and many others have done, you're still left with some of the most sublime moral philosophies in human history, on which 2000 years of religious tradition have been based.
We don't necessarily know that there was a Jesus Christ, and we absolutely don't have a "real good idea" of what he preached about. The succession of various books which were written with different agendas obfuscates what we really can know about him. From my studies, I have come to the conclusion that if he existed, he never claimed to be divine, and Jesus Christ is more likely a compilation of people than a single person. Furthermore, there are no contemporary documents of his life nor his death. Everything we know about him is from things that were written, at best, a decade after his life ended.
Mormonism is just something a guy with a wild imagination made up out of whole cloth. None of the people or places in the Book of Mormon have ever been shown to have existed. Some of the central tenets of the book have been proven to be false - or some might say fraudulent. It might as well be called "Harry Potter and the Golden Plates."
I could go through the NT and point out a whole bunch of tenets from it that are "proven" to be false as well. For example, "Faith can move mountains." No, actually it can't, Jesus was thinking of plate tectonic theory.
-
Heck,
I absolutely do not believe in a religious test to run for office, I am glad in theory that Mitt, Huntsmen and others can run for office legally and IF they get enough popular support can get elected.
That is democracy and a proper application of the separation of church and state..... I am just speaking for myself that I have a profound logical problem electing anyone who buys into concepts so
illogical to me as the most powerful person in the world. It immediately makes me question their critical thinking which I think is the most profound and important skill necessary for being President.
I also happen to think that Mormon's operate to similar to Scientology in terms of a very active/controlling organization which I am not comfortable with. The Mormons PR/money intervention in California
over gay marriage was a demonstration of how far they are willing to go to push their beliefs into law which is a major problem for me.
I dont care what other people believe in, I do not want them to push their beliefs that may stem from their religions on me by law and the Mormons are that type of organization. I am not just singling them out....
I equally have a high disdain for evangelicals and would not vote for someone who I think is influenced by them either.
Its just a personal preference, I am sure most who have read my posts know I do not like any of the mainstream religious establishments however there are a few I really dont like.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login