Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

ebuddy · May 13, 2007, 08:55 AM

Originally Posted by BRussell

Anyway, I think I've made my point, so I won't further take this thread into the depths of abortion.

Good thing too. We'd have to endure another hit and run post by Monique.

cgc · May 13, 2007, 11:24 AM

Mitt Romney looks Presidential and is very well spoken, just like Barack Obama.

Mithras · May 13, 2007, 11:32 AM

Yeah he's very articulate for a Mormon.

finboy · May 13, 2007, 12:10 PM

Originally Posted by cgc

Mitt Romney looks Presidential and is very well spoken, just like Barack Obama.

I heard that Joe B. of D. says Romney is very clean. Of course he could have plagiarized that from someplace.

macintologist · May 13, 2007, 04:22 PM

Who cares about looks when Mitt Romney supports the same big government spending and government intrusion into our private lives that pretty much ever other Republican supports?

That's why I support Ron Paul for the Republican nomination. He wants to get the government OFF our backs.

CNET gave him the highest rating for the technology voters guide in terms of freedom on the internet. I haven't researched this closely but I'm quite certain Ron Paul oppposes the DMCA.

Mithras · May 13, 2007, 05:08 PM

I'll say this in defense of Romney: There's no particular reason he should be compelled to defend his religion's ridiculous
~ beliefs (lost tribe stuff, curious claims about Native Americans, planet Kolob, etc.),
~ history (Smith had psychotic episodes and was a demonstrated liar, the "lost pages" episode, etc.)
~ and social stances (no black leaders until the late 70s, polygamy, etc. etc.),
just because it had the misfortune of being founded in the era of the modern free press.

If camera phones or even the printing press had been around when Jesus roamed the earth, he'd look pretty silly too.

BRussell · May 13, 2007, 05:32 PM

Originally Posted by Mithras

I'll say this in defense of Romney: There's no particular reason he should be compelled to defend his religion's ridiculous
~ beliefs (lost tribe stuff, curious claims about Native Americans, planet Kolob, etc.),
~ history (Smith had psychotic episodes and was a demonstrated liar, the "lost pages" episode, etc.)
~ and social stances (no black leaders until the late 70s, polygamy, etc. etc.),
just because it had the misfortune of being founded in the era of the modern free press.

If camera phones or even the printing press had been around when Jesus roamed the earth, he'd look pretty silly too.

I know you're mostly in jest here, but I think there are two types of legitimate questions to Romney: 1) What does he currently believe about his Church's current positions on some issues you mention (e.g., Native Americans). I also think it would be legitimate to ask a candidate whether he thinks the world is going to end, or what he or she thinks the Bible says about various things and whether the Bible should be law. Religion is really no different from any other personal belief. And 2) what did he believe about his church's positions on issues that have since been changed, but were its positions when he was an active member and big shot in the church (e.g., exclusion of blacks up until the 1970s, when Mitty was an active member).

finboy · May 14, 2007, 02:46 PM

Originally Posted by BRussell

I know you're mostly in jest here, but I think there are two types of legitimate questions to Romney:

It's all legitimate -- he's receiving support from the church as he's running. His father received support from the church to run. So ... it's all legit.

We need to have one of those South Park episodes that shows "What Mitt Believes". Scare-EEE. Reminds me of the guy in "The Dead Zone".

SirCastor · May 14, 2007, 03:12 PM

Originally Posted by finboy

It's all legitimate -- he's receiving support from the church as he's running. His father received support from the church to run. So ... it's all legit.

We need to have one of those South Park episodes that shows "What Mitt Believes". Scare-EEE. Reminds me of the guy in "The Dead Zone".

The Church doesn't sponsor, support, or endorse political candidates. He's not getting money from the church.

finboy · May 14, 2007, 03:56 PM

Originally Posted by SirCastor

The Church doesn't sponsor, support, or endorse political candidates. He's not getting money from the church.

No of course not. That would be illegal.

SirCastor · May 14, 2007, 04:15 PM

Originally Posted by finboy

No of course not. That would be illegal.

I need to rephrase what I said. Money is the obvious one yes, but Romney is getting no support in terms of endorsement, from the church either. If he does get support from the church it's directly from the membership, not the Church as an organization. I think Romney is counting on the Mormon vote, and I think that many LDS people will vote for Romney because he is LDS (unfortunately). That said, it's a misstep to say that the Church supports him.

finboy · May 14, 2007, 04:58 PM

Originally Posted by SirCastor

That said, it's a misstep to say that the Church supports him.

OK, so in a world where "support" doesn't mean "the membership of the LDS church will vote for Romney" then I agree with you. Otherwise, "support" means "support" just not financial, 'cause that would be a federal crime.

Religions can only support candidates when the religion involves global warming or socialism. Otherwise it's illegal.

Mithras · May 14, 2007, 05:03 PM

Religious organizations are welcome to explicitly support candidates. They just won't retain their special non-taxable status if they do so.

Then supporters will have to pay taxes on their donations, just like the global warming and socialism people.

greenamp · May 15, 2007, 11:53 PM

Romney was hammered tonight. And Giuliani completely twisted Ron Paul's words and showed the nation what a loud mouthed political opportunist he really is.

FWIW, Ron Paul is currently leading both a Fox news and MSNBC post debate poll. I know it's not scientific, but you can only vote once in each.

- - e r i k - - · May 16, 2007, 02:33 AM

OK, Ron Paul-bots, I've checked out this guy's profile and while I applaud his libertarianism, he unfortunately mixes it up with some scary isolationist views as well as some outmoded conservative views such as being anti-abortion. Fortunately his libertarianism precludes him from making that a state controlled decision.

He could have been the perfect candidate. So close, yet so far :/

Chuckit · May 16, 2007, 02:40 AM

Originally Posted by finboy

Religions can only support candidates when the religion involves global warming or socialism. Otherwise it's illegal.

Mormonism actually does involve socialism…

greenamp · May 16, 2007, 07:19 AM

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - -

OK, Ron Paul-bots, I've checked out this guy's profile and while I applaud his libertarianism, he unfortunately mixes it up with some scary isolationist views as well as some outmoded conservative views such as being anti-abortion. Fortunately his libertarianism precludes him from making that a state controlled decision.

He could have been the perfect candidate. So close, yet so far :/

Scary isolationist views? Care to explain what you think those are?

smacintush · May 16, 2007, 03:19 PM

I don't think that Ron Paul "isolationist views" are scary, I think about 20 years of that kind of thing is one thing that this country could use. His points about our nation building and policing the world are right on at this time in our history.

There are certainly going to be times in which this is necessary IMO, but it is becoming the rule rather than the exception.

In the debate he did have a good point about 9/11, but he greatly overstated it. Giuliani's response was just more of the same "I was there on 9/11 and therefore I am an expert and I am untouchable." crap that he is using to further his political ambition.

greenamp · May 16, 2007, 06:02 PM

Originally Posted by smacintush

I don't think that Ron Paul "isolationist views" are scary, I think about 20 years of that kind of thing is one thing that this country could use. His points about our nation building and policing the world are right on at this time in our history.

There are certainly going to be times in which this is necessary IMO, but it is becoming the rule rather than the exception.

In the debate he did have a good point about 9/11, but he greatly overstated it. Giuliani's response was just more of the same "I was there on 9/11 and therefore I am an expert and I am untouchable." crap that he is using to further his political ambition.

His comments about our foreign policy in relation to 9/11 and "blowback" were spot on though. If anything I think he should have explained it further, ie, we helped create the talliban and OBL to fight Russian mid east advances, we funded and support Saddam from the beginning, and stood by while he gassed the Kurds with gas we gave him, then used it as a basis to invade the country.

It is our screwed up foreign policy that helped fuel the type of animosity towards our country that would motivate several men to become suicide murderers. The 9/11 commission report says the same.

Apparently Giuliani was too busy running around in drag with Donald Trump to have been bothered with knowing anything about foreign policy, and how could he be expected to as being merely a mayor, nothing else.

Ron Paul is a veteran of the military, was a presidential candidate in 1988 in which he was 3rd in the popular vote, and has served 10 years in congress. He is anti tax, anti big gov't, anti spending, pro life, pro gun, pro states rights. And yet Fox news tries to label him as "being in the wrong party" in the midst of the pro gun control, pro choice, pro gov't, pro big spending monster that is Rudy McRomney? How ironic.