Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Chongo · May 12, 2012, 04:54 PM

Originally Posted by finboy

I'm not a big Romney fan, but the last couple of weeks has really shown the lengths to which the Lefties will go to smear someone.

I think they should be careful - after all, we don't know everything about Barry's high school life (or whatever his name was back then). The fact that they are so comfortable throwing rocks shows the advantage that having the media sewed up affords them, I think. So far nobody has cared enough to dredge that stuff up.

I'm waiting for the inevitable attack on the LDS, This will open the door for analysis of Obama's choices of pastors.

besson3c · May 12, 2012, 05:01 PM

Originally Posted by finboy

I'm not a big Romney fan, but the last couple of weeks has really shown the lengths to which the Lefties will go to smear someone.

You've gotta be kidding me. Were you asleep through the whole 2008 campaign and beyond in using the everything-and-anything, see-what-sticks-against-the-wall approach against Obama? Pull your head out of your ass, this goes both ways. This is politics, it is not just a lefty or a righty thing.

Jawbone54 · May 12, 2012, 05:48 PM

Obama doesn't want the religious Pandora's box opened, I'm sure. I doubt Democrats will harp too much on the LDS (though Southpark surely will).

subego · May 12, 2012, 06:49 PM

And don't forget Obama wants to redefine marriage, so him and the LDS are tight as ticks on that one.

lpkmckenna · May 12, 2012, 07:05 PM

Originally Posted by ebuddy

An incident of bullying or hazing or whatever it was and his actions today regarding the allegations no more defines who Romney is than cocaine use defines Obama.

Bullsh!t comparison. Obama told us himself in his own book that he used drugs, and he expressed regret for doing it. Rmoney first pretends he doesn't recall, then he gives an insincere non-apology. They are in no way similar at all. My point stands: Rmoney is an unrepentant bully, and he needs to show some character and provide a public account of the situation.

And, there is no down-side for Rmoney at all if he does this. If he wrote an Op-Ed in the Times, telling us the truth about the event, and providing a sincere apology, and outlining a national anti-bullying strategy, he would come out the hero. This is an opportunity for Rmoney to show a human side and endear himself to the public. His advisers are certainly telling him this. Will he listen to them? Time will tell. He doubled-down on the roof-dog story, so I don't have high hopes.

The reason outlets look for these type of "gotchas" is specifically because there is no right way to handle them.

There is no such thing as a "gotcha issue," that's a conservative delusion. I just told you the obvious "right way" to deal with this issue. There is no reason for Rmoney to be hurt by this, and he is only hurting himself by refusing to address it properly. So far, he has just reinforced the perception that he is a remorseless jerk.

subego · May 12, 2012, 07:17 PM

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

And, there is no down-side for Rmoney at all if he does this. If he wrote an Op-Ed in the Times, telling us the truth about the event, and providing a sincere apology, and outlining a national anti-bullying strategy...

He doesn't even need to go that far. All he needed to do was appear plausibly contrite and consider it finished.

Everyone is quick to point out they did horrible stuff in high-school. You can include me in that group.

If someone were to ask me how I felt about a specific horrible act it wouldn't be all that difficult to appear like I feel bad about it because I'd actually feel bad about it.

lpkmckenna · 08:06 PM

Originally Posted by Chongo

I'm waiting for the inevitable attack on the LDS, This will open the door for analysis of Obama's choices of pastors.

Uh, that door has been banged like the town tramp for years.

I have no direct criticism of the LDS, but I'm troubled by the way Rmoney relates to his religion.

To explain, I have nothing against any Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, or almost any other denomination, unless you're a cultist like a Moonie or a Scientologist, even though I do think Mormonism has many of the marks of a cult.

But, I do have problems with certain kinds of Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, and so on. No Catholic who agrees with the Vatican policy on contraception can be trusted with gov't power. No Protestant who agrees with creationism can be trusted with gov't power. And any Mormon that would show complete disregard for his own father-in-law's beliefs and perform the baptism-of-the-dead for him can't be trusted with gov't power.

Rmoney's father-in-law was a life-long non-believer. He wanted nothing to do with Mormonism. The fact that Rmoney trampled over his father-in-law's dignity that way is pretty much the most disgusting thing I've ever heard about Rmoney.

If Rmoney doesn't respect the divergent beliefs of his own father-in-law, can any of us expect our beliefs to be respected?

subego · May 12, 2012, 07:46 PM

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

Rmoney's father-in-law was a life-long non-believer. He wanted nothing to do with Mormonism. The fact that Rmoney trampled over his father-in-law's dignity that way is pretty much the most disgusting thing I've ever heard about Rmoney.

If Rmoney doesn't respect the divergent beliefs of his own father-in-law, can any of us expect our beliefs to be respected?

My knee-jerk reaction to this is: how on Earth does that matter?

Is there a step I'm missing?

My putting words in your mouth question would be: if my father hates a denomination, I can't become that denomination without disrespecting his beliefs?

lpkmckenna · May 12, 2012, 08:04 PM

Originally Posted by subego

My putting words in your mouth question would be: if my father hates a denomination, I can't become that denomination without disrespecting his beliefs?

That's not what I'm talking about. Mormonism has a bizarre rite called baptist of the dead. Basically, if you can't convert someone before they die, you can convert them after they die. It's pretty much the religious equivalent of pissing on their grave.

The LDS have been getting bad press for years for baptizing dead Jews (including Holocaust vicitms), but I think the practice of baptizing any non-Mormons is inherently revolting.

subego · May 12, 2012, 08:12 PM

Ahh.. Got ya.

I figured there was something I was missing. Thanks for the clarification.

I'm not sure how I feel about that. I could see arguments on both sides.

Jawbone54 · May 12, 2012, 09:03 PM

Yeah, I believe it's actually baptism "for the dead."

It's a bizarre ritual, but then again, I guess secularists probably think that some of my "standard" Christian beliefs are bizarre too. There's truly no solid scriptural foundation for it, though.

lpkmckenna · May 12, 2012, 09:18 PM

Originally Posted by Jawbone54

There's truly no solid scriptural foundation for it, though.

More exactly, baptist for the dead is mentioned by Paul in I Corinthians 15:29, but no one has any idea what he was talking about.

turtle777 · May 12, 2012, 09:19 PM

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

Rmoney's father-in-law was a life-long non-believer. He wanted nothing to do with Mormonism. The fact that Rmoney trampled over his father-in-law's dignity that way is pretty much the most disgusting thing I've ever heard about Rmoney.

If Rmoney doesn't respect the divergent beliefs of his own father-in-law, can any of us expect our beliefs to be respected?

Typical bullshit from you.

If Romney had come after his father's beliefs, you would have said something along the lines of Romney just being a lemming.

Seriously, you are quite lame when you are on your soap box.

-t

lpkmckenna · May 12, 2012, 09:39 PM

Originally Posted by turtle777

If Romney had come after his father's beliefs, you would have said something along the lines of Romney just being a lemming.

Can you rephrase this? I have no idea what you are trying to convey. What is "come after his father's beliefs" supposed to mean?

besson3c · May 12, 2012, 09:40 PM

Is "Rmoney" actually a thing, or just something lpkmckenna does, ala BadKosh's $bama, or whatever it was?

Shaddim · May 12, 2012, 09:54 PM

Originally Posted by Jawbone54

Obama doesn't want the religious Pandora's box opened, I'm sure. I doubt Democrats will harp too much on the LDS (though Southpark surely will).

You bet your magical bloomers they will.

Shaddim · May 12, 2012, 10:06 PM

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

More exactly, baptist for the dead is mentioned by Paul in I Corinthians 15:29, but no one has any idea what he was talking about.

He's talking about a gnostic practice of standing in place of someone who is dead and accepting baptism for them, in intercession. Not baptizing corpses, which is utterly pointless.

"For the dead can not know the glory of the God most high, or of His grace and mercies. - Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite

Wiskedjak · May 12, 2012, 10:39 PM

Originally Posted by Shaddim

He's talking about a gnostic practice of standing in place of someone who is dead and accepting baptism for them, in intercession. Not baptizing corpses, which is utterly pointless.

Right, but I think that's what lpkmckenna is questioning. It doesn't appear very respectful to baptize a person into a religion after they died, even by proxy, particularly if that person chose not to join that religion in life.

lpkmckenna · May 12, 2012, 10:52 PM

Originally Posted by Shaddim

He's talking about a gnostic practice of standing in place of someone who is dead and accepting baptism for them, in intercession. Not baptizing corpses, which is utterly pointless.

"For the dead can not know the glory of the God most high, or of His grace and mercies. - Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite

That was indeed the opinion of some early church thinkers, but scholars today are not so sure. For one thing, did gnosticism actually exist in the 50s when Paul wrote? (No scholarly consensus.) The first writer to use the term was Ireneaus, as a label against Valentinus; this happened in the late 2nd century, so to project that label backwards in time is extremely sketchy. Frankly, scholars are divided whether "gnostic" is actually a useful label at all, or just a heavy-handed catch-all term for some non-orthodox movements. And would those early "gnostics" have actually practiced any kind of baptism? We have an enormous amount of gnostic writings, most of which discuss their myths, but very little of their practices.

I think my point stands: we have no idea what Paul really meant, but there are lots and lots and lots of theories.

Originally Posted by besson3c

Is "Rmoney" actually a thing, or just something lpkmckenna does, ala BadKosh's $bama, or whatever it was?

I got it from Fark, when someone posted this hilarious photoshop'd pic:

hyteckit · May 13, 2012, 03:50 AM

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

I got it from Fark, when someone posted this hilarious photoshop'd pic:

Haha... OMG.

Romney ==> R-Money

Chongo · May 13, 2012, 01:24 PM

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

.

But, I do have problems with certain kinds of Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, and so on. No Catholic who agrees with the Vatican policy on contraception can be trusted with gov't power. No Protestant who agrees with creationism can be trusted with gov't power.

I trust them more than a materialist/collectivist/moral relativist.

ebuddy · May 13, 2012, 02:26 PM

That's funny. We'll see this election cycle which crony candidate's got his hand on the most loot.

besson3c · May 13, 2012, 02:35 PM

I think that Rmoney Photoshop pic works even better given that the R looks like a dollar sign.

Chongo · May 13, 2012, 07:13 PM

Too funny not to post.

finboy · May 14, 2012, 02:02 AM

Originally Posted by besson3c

You've gotta be kidding me. Were you asleep through the whole 2008 campaign and beyond in using the everything-and-anything, see-what-sticks-against-the-wall approach against Obama? Pull your head out of your ass, this goes both ways. This is politics, it is not just a lefty or a righty thing.

Whatever. This Romney stuff has already made the main stream media. None of the kooky stuff about Obama has EVER been given a serious vetting.

It absolutely IS a Lefty thing, when 9/10 reporters are Democrats. Oh, you betcha.

subego · May 14, 2012, 06:54 AM

Which particular kooky things do you feel weren't vetted?

Wiskedjak · May 14, 2012, 08:21 AM

Originally Posted by finboy

Whatever. This Romney stuff has already made the main stream media. None of the kooky stuff about Obama has EVER been given a serious vetting.

It absolutely IS a Lefty thing, when 9/10 reporters are Democrats. Oh, you betcha.

Are you kidding? Fox is *still* reporting on Obama's birth certificate.
Search for obama birth certificate

besson3c · May 14, 2012, 12:20 PM

Obama's birth certificate, Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, Obama going to a madrassa (sp?!) are just a few stories I can think of that had plenty of national airtime Finboy.

As far as 9/10 reporters being Democrat, you have an entire news network which happens to have many of the highest rated cable news shows. Don't play the persecuted conservative card.

Wakey wakey! Sleep well?

andi*pandi · May 14, 2012, 12:39 PM

How could anyone forget the flag pin controversy?!?!?

That said, I didn't know obama tried cocaine, but a) he put it in his book instead of hiding or pretending it didn't happen, and b) he's not doing it now so hey lesson learned. I also didn't care if Clinton inhaled in college.

besson3c · May 14, 2012, 12:54 PM

Originally Posted by andi*pandi

How could anyone forget the flag pin controversy?!?!?

That was among my favorite, but I don't think it was as big as the others I've listed.

Which of these stories do you think will resurface?

andi*pandi · May 14, 2012, 01:04 PM

The ones that never went away. Muslim, birth certificate, communist... those have the stickiest glue.

besson3c · May 14, 2012, 01:16 PM

I hope that more of the general public starts to see the idiocy of this stuff, throw him being a socialist into the mix too.

Mitt Romney · May 14, 2012, 02:07 PM

Not all high school bullies will start a war over failed intelligence.

Trust me. Make me commander in chief... Pretty please :* :* :*

andi*pandi · May 14, 2012, 02:32 PM

Sounds like an offer I can refuse.

Chongo · May 14, 2012, 10:57 PM

Speaking of offers. Rev. Wright raises his head again. He's claiming he was offered $150K to keep his mouth shut in 2008.
Report: 2008 Obama Campaign Tried to Bribe Jeremiah Wright - Yahoo! News

besson3c · May 15, 2012, 12:18 AM

I'd like to know what would be inside a Mitt Romney piñata if he were to make one?

subego · May 15, 2012, 12:28 AM

The dog.

besson3c · May 15, 2012, 12:39 AM

Originally Posted by subego

The dog.

Hehehe... I LOLed, as the internet kids say

Uncle Skeleton · May 15, 2012, 02:10 AM

Originally Posted by andi*pandi

The ones that never went away. Muslim, birth certificate, communist... those have the stickiest glue.

Sorry, the answer was "Jeremiah Wright" apparently

andi*pandi · May 15, 2012, 09:12 AM

dammit! What's the consolation prize?

besson3c · May 15, 2012, 02:17 PM

Originally Posted by andi*pandi

dammit! What's the consolation prize?

Maybe Mitt Romney (the MacNN member) will put his dog inside a pinata and let you whack the payoff out of it?

subego · May 15, 2012, 02:29 PM

The thing is, putting the dog in there implies emotion, which is something he seems to lack.

More likely it's going to be really lame candy, like stale circus peanuts, candy corn, and those z-grade miniature chocolate eggs left over from Easter.

Christ, Mitt. You're worth billions, spring for the Sweet-Tarts once in awhile.

finboy · May 15, 2012, 02:52 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

Obama's birth certificate, Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, Obama going to a madrassa (sp?!) are just a few stories I can think of that had plenty of national airtime Finboy.

I was talking about the kooky stuff. The Wright and Ayers things aren't kooky - they're documented. I guess the madrassa thing might be sorta kooky.

Holding Fox up as somehow making up for the remaining 9/10 sources that lean Left is insane.

The Final Dakar · May 15, 2012, 03:03 PM

Originally Posted by finboy

Holding Fox up as somehow making up for the remaining 9/10 sources that lean Left is insane.

Ignoring that FOX has the most viewers is insane.

besson3c · May 15, 2012, 03:04 PM

Originally Posted by finboy

I was talking about the kooky stuff. The Wright and Ayers things aren't kooky - they're documented. I guess the madrassa thing might be sorta kooky.

What's your point again?

You wrote this:

I'm not a big Romney fan, but the last couple of weeks has really shown the lengths to which the Lefties will go to smear someone.

Kooky or not, what you deem as kooky is irrelevant, the right goes to great lengths to smear Obama too. Why anybody would think that one party is exempt from playing politics defies all logic.

subego · May 15, 2012, 03:20 PM

Originally Posted by finboy

I was talking about the kooky stuff. The Wright and Ayers things aren't kooky - they're documented. I guess the madrassa thing might be sorta kooky.

This Romney thing isn't documented?

finboy · May 16, 2012, 07:40 PM

Originally Posted by subego

This Romney thing isn't documented?

Of course it is. Somewhere. But when has the same media brought up documented stuff about Obama's high school years and asked questions? Never.

besson3c · May 16, 2012, 08:55 PM

Originally Posted by finboy

Of course it is. Somewhere. But when has the same media brought up documented stuff about Obama's high school years and asked questions? Never.

If there was stuff there that could cause damage, don't you think Romney or McCain would have been all over it?

Uncle Skeleton · May 16, 2012, 09:06 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

If there was stuff there that could cause damage, don't you think Romney or McCain would have been all over it?

They would have if they were Lefties, duh.

lpkmckenna · May 17, 2012, 04:20 AM

Romney giving up on home state of Massachusetts

I find it fascinating that Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum have so little support in own states. It's like the people who know them best know exactly how useless they really are.