Posted on 06/13/2012 6:05:21 PM PDT by Grig
Maybe too isolated, too much elevation, un-coolness or something ~ maybe the Samoan football players get all the attention (and aren't those guys all supposed to be Seventh Day Adventists anyway).
The street system was interesting, but not worth revisiting.
You'll notice I didn't even need to get around to doctrines.
Unless the materials were specially protected ~ like the Spanish cross buried with the dead guy at Spanish HIll PA in the late 1500s ~ they are just gone.
Only the most acid resistant goods have survived just the last 400 years. Ceramics, fired clay, large iron objects ~ that's about it.
Otherwise there's no evidence of any pre-Columbian iron culture in Eastern North America, nor should there be. In the West things are different, but we still don't see iron implements ~ or much of anything in terms of high culture. Still we know Buddhists of some sort made it to the PacNW, and Japanese made it to the Zuni area, Costa Rica, Chile, and other areas in pre-Columbian times, but there's no evidence they engaged in making iron objects ~ and they knew how!
Anyone else recalling Saundra Duffy pushing the limits of good conduct and then constantly claiming censorship and martyrdom when called on it?
Well, we have Grig here being a doofus and anti_FReeping from the trollpit of trewblew.
And we have MrPiper posting garbage to provoke a mod reaaction and then whining about it as well.
Couldn’t be that they are trying to fake an event like Dan Rather did, right?
No, that wouldn’t happen.
Grig has chosen to disbelieve people like me; that's his error. FReeper saywhatagain wrote TRUE words when he posted:
Saying that many dislike Mitt's politics because of his Mormonism is no different than liberals saying to disagree with O is racist.
No Mormon church that I've ever seen sports a cross, and Mormonism's own history clearly illustrates how Mormonism is separate from Christianity, except for those who would quibble over the meaning of the word "is."
And P-Marlowe, the picture becomes even more clear as you post another obvious, demonstrable TRUTH:
Just as Mormons are, in fact, wolves in sheep's clothing pretending to be Christians, Romney is a wolf in sheep's clothing pretending to be a Republican.
The psy-op convincing patriots that the world would end and Republicans would be as weak as kittens if Obama got a 2nd term, is hidden in plain sight.
Conservatives and Republicans could very likely DOMINATE Obama if he got a 2nd term, as Obama is despised by at least half of Americans.
Romney, judging by his record and by the overall composition of Republicans in Congress, woud most likely DOMINATE Conservatives if he got a first term.
THEREFORE the only reasonable way for me to vote in the presidential, and it is MY DUTY to vote, is to leave it to God -- and Americans willing to sanction either Romney or Obama -- to decide which authoritarian will be the next President.
This, FRiends, is why I perceive that at this stage of the game, the NUMBER ONE PRIORITY for American conservatives is see Romney denied a landslide. Grig himself has illustrated what would happen: What was in reality a desperate referendum against Obama, would be twisted by Romney, the GOP-e, and moderates into an enthusiastic mandate and endorsement of Romney's "progressivism."
LOOK BEFORE YOU LEAP.
THX 1138
Are you a former Mormon?
Unfortunately, for Mormons, and other so blinded, the Lord will destroy an unrepentant Babylon.
The Harlot that sitteth upon the beast is condemned of herself.
Mormons are trying to save their religion, not their souls.
How much less, those that they evangelize.
TF replies: Romneycare, passed by an alliance of RINO's and Democrats.
And that's not counting the crushing regulation and control on virtually every aspect of energy and food production, as well as consumption, via the whole Global Warming hype that Romney embraces.
A Romney presidency would mean a Republican President bent on bending Americans to government via environmental regulation. COUNT ON IT.
One way or the other (unless a miracle happens), our next president is going to be an authoritarian statist who seeks to expand government control over our lives. Voting for Romney fails to deal with it -- it is whistling past the graveyard.
If it comes to O v R, there is only one way I can see to DEAL WITH IT: cast a presidential vote for the sole purpose of hoping enough patriots are equally as contemptuous of Government Growth, and that when the votes are counted, the vote was so split that authoritarian president in the White House in 2013 is looking at an electorate that rejected him 2 to 1. Forcing a plurality "victory" is the only way to help conservatives fight the next statist president, whoever he ends up being.
Yes, that's clear to many of us.
We need to try to understand, though, that there are many people who chart their lives based upon their fears. They consistently choose what they perceive to be the safest, least challenging path. They view people like us as overly aggressive in the face of danger. They persistently and repetitively describe the dangers that they see because they convince themselves that we must somehow not see the dangers that have robbed them of the courage to directly confront the source of their terror.
There isn't any cure for them; it is just their basic nature. They will consistently choose flight over fight. They deserve our patience and respect.
All right, let's assume for the sake of argument that I'm thinking small. My initial question still stands. Why aren't you helping? The journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step. I've taken mine. Come on and take yours. If my goldfish gets eaten by the sharks, at least I die free.
Wrong again.
I haven't been wrong yet. The GOP-E has told you that you have to support Romney -- and that's exactly what you're doing. You may as well own it.
I voted for Gingrich.
I caucused for Santorum. And I won't vote for who the GOP-E tells me I must support because I won't support an abortionist, I won't support a gun-grabber, I won't support a statist and I won't support a liberal. I'm accountable to God for my vote and that's that.
Now, the choice comes down to two "most-viable" candidates: Obama & whoever the GOP runs. You want me to vote for someone other than the GOP candidate? Fine. Give me someone more viable than the GOP candidate and I will *DEFINITELY* vote for him. You have until Nov. 6th, 2012 when I walk into that voting booth to to get it done. Take your time.
No. YOUR choice comes down to two 'most viable' candidates. My choice still comes down to the entire remaining field. And again ... you want me to give you someone. Why will you not seek someone out for yourself? Educate yourself. Learn about Virgil Goode or Tom Hoefling or someone else, instead of tying your conservatism into a knot over Mitt Romney.
The converse is also true. You can, if you wish, try to convince me why I should agree with you and support Mitt Romney. However, "he's less statist" ain't gonna cut it.
I'm not beholden to the GOP
Kinda looks like it from where I stand. Let's build a real party. What do you say?
I'm beholden to whoever stands the best chance of beating Obama and I don't care who that is. If you don't feel the same, then I presume you are either desperate for some way to feel good about yourself (country be damned) and/or you actually prefer Obama for whatever reason. Knowingly voting for someone who you know darn well doesn't stand a snowball's chance is an act of futility.
Holy False Dichotomy, Batman! The ultimate ABO fall-back argument! As a conservative, I won't vote for a leftist so, hey, I must REALLY support Obama!
It's quite interesting how you people feel you can define my vote for a third party candidate as what it's not -- somehow a vote for someone else -- but you won't define your own vote for Romney as what it actually is -- a vote for Mitt Romney. Why won't you own your vote? Your slap at my patriotism aside, I love my country enough to tell my political party when it's wrong, because my country is more important than my political party. I hope yours is too.
They can, but name the last time a principled group of conservatives displaced the GOP's presidential candidate *after* the nominating convention? You can't. Local, State and US Congress races? Oh, heck yes! Presidential races? I admire your optimism, but wishful thinking won't get you anywhere and we lack the leverage to force it. Go fish.
Obviously, it's never happened in a Presidential contest. Am I happy about that? No. Does it mean I surrender? Absolutely not.
Now ask yourself how leverage is generated. Sitting back and accepting Romney not only fails to generate leverage for the right, it gives HIM leverage against US. How's that going to work in the long run?
If the majority of likely voter polling indicates the town-drunk leads all others opposing Obama, then that's who I vote for. Don't like the town-drunk? Then get your guy out in front.
I'm trying. You seem to be voting for the town drunk. But I notice you skipped past my question about how voting for the town drunk advances conservatism. That's because you know good and well that a vote for the town drunk, or a vote for Mitt Romney, won't do it. Had you thought otherwise you wouldn't have supported Newt, you'd have supported Romney from the start. And we both know it.
I don't care *who* it is as long as Obama is gone.
Absolutely valid. I have to be fair and grant that. Obama is an utter menace. But I don't feel replacing him with Romney is an option that will prove acceptable to save our Republic. I will vote for the person who I feel IS an acceptable choice. That is my right as a citizen.
We have three or four SCOTUS justices in their 80's. Given those appointments are for *LIFE* and we already know Obama favors lib/prog/lesbian/whatever Justices (Kagen & Sotomayor), I won't vote in any way that gives any statistical advantage to Obama that might lead to him picking one or more replacement justices next term. You can give him all the advantage you like, but don't even bother trying to sell me an infeasible long-shot.
Had a good look at Romney's judicial appointment record? You're whistling past the graveyard.
For the nth time, I'm voting for whoever stands the best chance of beating Obama at this point, whoever that may be. Currently that's the GOP candidate. Don't foolishly presume that indicates I support the GOP. If you get your candidate ahead of the GOP candidate, I'll switch in a heartbeat, GOP be damned. It is just that simple.
If you help that candidate, maybe he can get ahead. If you don't, your Declaration of Independence is just talk. Either way, if you want to advance conservatism, you're going to have to make a move. You can do it. You'll have to do it. I can't do it for you.
What? A moment ago, you were all gung-ho on the miraculous power of a "a principled group of conservatives" doing the impossible. Get them together and make it known wide and far that we are seeking a primary challenger for the next election. We'll have 4 years - *YEARS* - to get our act together and apply whatever pressure we can bear. Right now we only have 4 months. You couldn't even get conservatives to agree on a candidate in four months. That's why the most viable candidate is the only sane option.
And I still am. But if you think conservative opposition within the Republican Party -- which is the context in which I was speaking, and which you snipped right out of that reply -- could defeat a President Romney in 2016 you'd probably want to take another look at your dictionary definition of 'sanity'. It wouldn't happen within the framework of the Republican Party, but I suspect you know that. We'd need a conservative party, which is the entire point of my initial reply to you. In the meantime, though, I guess we'll see you in four years. Better late than never.
Look, I don't care to hear about your fantasy candidate. I don't care to hear the same old retreaded complaints about Romney - you're preaching to the choir.
You're voting for the man, not me. I'm choppin', but no chips are flyin'. If I really am 'preaching to the choir', why won't you sing? You're good at telling us you dislike Romney and you aren't beholden to the GOP. I ask you to prove it.
All I want to hear about is a specific candidate and how we convince all the needed voting blocs to pull the lever for that guy over Obama. Then we need to see some polling of likely voters indicating that they are buying what we are selling. I don't care if that's the GOP candidate, some stealth candidate or even the town drunk. You get him in the lead -- I vote for him. Plain & simple.
Really, it doesn't matter which candidate I name -- because you won't do anything until I do your work for you and 'get him in the lead'. Until you're willing to help, your claim about being willing to desert the GOP is just talk, and we know how much that costs.
For the record, I love the CP's platform with only a couple of exceptions in the area of defense, and I find Virgil Goode has more principle in his little finger than Mitt Romney has in his entire body. I've talked with Tom Hoefling, who I admire as a man of principle and who is an outstanding social conservative. Those are my two. Yours is Mitt Romney.
Look, despite our difference I don't fault you a scrap for what you're doing. I'm just challenging you to use what are clearly considerable powers of speech and communication to think outside the GOP's box. You can do it.
- Your grandchildren will call Mormons Christians, and look at Mormonism as the third branch of Christianity alongside Catholicism and Protestantism”
Have you ever heard of Eastern Orthodoxy? That’s the 3rd Branch of Christianity and it’s existed for a very long time.
Mormonism would have to change so much to be considered Christian it couldn’t be considered Mormonism anymore.
Linda and many others here are posting PROOF of Romney's lack of it. LF makes the sad observation: I know it would not matter to them, character doesn't matter, only winning against the other liar, cheat, thief..........
Obama was "Hope and Change."
ABO is "Hope he'll Change."
We know how the first one worked out.
My third man on the ladder truck is a Mormon. He is very conservative. We go shooting together and he can’t stand Romney. So I guess he is an odd ball according to you.
Read post 535 again, I doubt that the Mormon you know is a freeper.
Bravo! Epic conservative apologetics (in the classic sense).
Most of all, romney has basically flipped off the conservatives. He refused dozens of invites to pro-life and pro-family events. He refused to sign a pro-life pledge that every other candidate signed. He said he does not have to reach out to us, that we will vote for him. He is so arrogant it makes me sick. At least Obama has enough respect for his voters, that he goes to there events and ask for there vote. Romney and gop can kiss our @$$.
Catholicism and Protestantism and Eastern Orthodoxy.
What do all of them agree on? That Mormonism is not a Christian religion, that it is it’s own separate religion,
Grigg has already been zotted but he and his buddies at an anti-freerepublic site are still reading this thread.
Is there a way to get my older pings quicker than just paging back? She insisted everyone call her a Christian, said some disparaging things about the bible, Paul of the bible and.....I want to read my post to be sure what else. Basically her religion and feelings were right and my faith was wrong, but she was not nice about it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.