Mitt Romney Announcement - LIVE THREAD 2/13/2007

[PDR]

C-SPAN One carrying Romney announcement live....

[PDR]

John 13:21 (NIV) After he has said this, Jesus was troubled in spirit and testified, "I tell you the truth, one of you is going to betray me."

[webstersII]

"I noticed you didn't answer the question. I will ask again, one more time. Are you also against our detention of enemy combatants picked up on the battlefield, and detained in Guantanamo?"

I was in a hurry and overlooked it. No, I don't have a problem with that.

You're cracking me up. You just went over the standard talking points instead of answering my question I asked above:
So it makes sense to prohibit free speech, allow open surveillance of everyone in America, yet not bother closing our porous borders?

[webstersII]

"did you read what he said on free speech and the net or did you read the press and blog accounts of what he said?"

It's on his website. Check it out.

Some people are claiming that he was misquoted, but he was pretty clear about what he said.

[AdvisorB]

"So it makes sense to prohibit free speech, allow open surveillance of everyone in America, yet not bother closing our porous borders?" How is Newt's position on the issues prohibiting free speech? What would lead you to the conclusion, from Newts stated positions, that a President Gingrich (love the sound of that) would "allow open surveillance on everyone..?"

Now let's get back to what defines a candidate as a conservative. Newt has a 90% lifetime record from the American Conservative Union, one of America's oldest and largest conservative lobbying groups. Now you say it's mere talking points, but one might conclude, that comment to be an attempt to duck an unpleasant issue. Once again I have to ask, what kind of lifetime ACU score must a candidate have, in your estimation, to be considered a Conservative?

[PDR]

I have -- but I have had a number of conversations with people who relied on the retelling of he said rather than his own words.

[Dr. Zzyzx]

There seem to be many on the Romney threads who are so angry with the Mormon church that they can no longer think clearly or reasonably. They are venting their spleens in virtually every Romney thread with anything they can think of to fan the flames of prejudice.

For those who have an open-minded interest in knowing the actual doctrine of the Mormon Church concerning government, I've posted a portion of it here. It's from the Mormon's Doctrine and Covenants Section 134. It was adopted in August of 1835 in Kirtland, Ohio and has been the guiding principle of the church ever since.

1 We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society.

2 We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.

3 We believe that all governments necessarily require civil officers and magistrates to enforce the laws of the same; and that such as will administer the law in equity and justice should be sought for and upheld by the voice of the people if a republic, or the will of the sovereign.

4 We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.

5 We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience.

6 We believe that every man should be honored in his station, rulers and magistrates as such, being placed for the protection of the innocent and the punishment of the guilty; and that to the laws all men show respect and deference, as without them peace and harmony would be supplanted by anarchy and terror; human laws being instituted for the express purpose of regulating our interests as individuals and nations, between man and man; and divine laws given of heaven, prescribing rules on spiritual concerns, for faith and worship, both to be answered by man to his Maker.

7 We believe that rulers, states, and governments have a right, and are bound to enact laws for the protection of all citizens in the free exercise of their religious belief; but we do not believe that they have a right in justice to deprive citizens of this privilege, or proscribe them in their opinions, so long as a regard and reverence are shown to the laws and such religious opinions do not justify sedition nor conspiracy.

8 We believe that the commission of crime should be punished according to the nature of the offense; that murder, treason, robbery, theft, and the breach of the general peace, in all respects, should be punished according to their criminality and their tendency to evil among men, by the laws of that government in which the offense is committed; and for the public peace and tranquility all men should step forward and use their ability in bringing offenders against good laws to punishment.

9 We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

Jesus knew who Judas was and knew of his betrayal. It was necessary for Judas to betrayal Jesus, for the events to move forward as they had always been prophesized. The end had to come, for the resurrection to happen. Without Jesus' death and resurrection there is no Christianity.

[TChris]

Jesus knew who Judas was and knew of his betrayal. It was necessary for Judas to betrayal Jesus, for the events to move forward as they had always been prophesized. The end had to come, for the resurrection to happen. Without Jesus' death and resurrection there is no Christianity.

Correct.

But someone observing from the outside could simply say he was fooled.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

LOGIC will show anyone that Christianity is correct. There is no smoke and mirror deception. If someone from the outside actually reads the Bible and LISTENS to God, the truth is easy to find.

[redgirlinabluestate]

I liked this part.

"I do not believe Washington can be transformed from within by lifetime politicians," Romney said, seeking to turn a potential liability, his limited political experience, into an asset. "There have been too many deals, too many favors, too many entanglements - and too little real world experience managing, guiding, leading."

The comment was a veiled swipe at his top rival for the GOP nomination, four-term Sen. John McCain of Arizona.

[webstersII]

"Now let's get back to what defines a candidate as a conservative. "

I answered your question, now it's your turn to answer mine.

"So it makes sense to prohibit free speech, allow open surveillance of everyone in America, yet not bother closing our porous borders?"

Still waiting . . . .

[onyx]

Best wishes and good luck to Mitt Romney.

I'm glad he's officially announced.

The more candidates we have, the better!!

[AdvisorB]

It's really difficult to have a dialogue with someone who makes a lot of baseless assertions, with little or no evidence, and then asks for a response about an unsubstantiated assertion. Where is your proof, sir?

You maintain that the former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, architect of the conservative "Contract With America," if elected will "prohibit free speech, allow open surveillance of everyone in America..." The probability that a future President Gingrich would be a threat to the civil liberties of American citizens, runs as close to zero as mathematics allows. It is preposterous on its face, and something I would expect to hear from a Osama Hussein Obama supporter (BTW who are you supporting?) rather than coming from a purported man of the right.

If you're going to continuue engaging in a lack of real argumentation, or spew a lot of empty assertions, don't waste my time, or your time, for that matter, with a comment.

[AdvisorB]

Forgive me for verbally stepping all over your candidate's announcement speech with these comments about Newt Gingrich. It was rude, and I apologize.

[AdvisorB]

"
Best wishes and good luck to Mitt Romney.

I'm glad he's officially announced.

The more candidates we have, the better!!"

I just have to say, after perusing your posts, what a class act you are.

[onyx]

WOW! That's the nicest thing anyone has ever said about me here. Thank you. You have made me very happy and I am humbled by your kind words.

[webstersII]

From Newt's own site:

"we will adopt rules of engagement that use every technology we can find to break up their capacity to use the internet, to break up their capacity to use free speech" [that doesn't sound like someone who is in favor of free speech]

"Congress Should Pay for Immigrants' Healthcare" [he wants the federal gov't to pay for it instead of the states, which is fine but he wants to address the overall problem with a guest worker program]

"We will never be able to control the border until we go to a migrant worker program that recognizes the reality that there are several million Mexicans willing to work in the U.S. and there are several hundred thousand Americans willing to hire them. . . " [he wants to secure the border after the guest worker program is in place]

This stuff is on his site and has been discussed on FR.

"The probability that a future President Gingrich would be a threat to the civil liberties of American citizens, runs as close to zero as mathematics allows."

Your point is ridiculous, as evidenced by Newt's own words. You are the one who is spouting baseless assertions, as evidenced by the above.

Have a nice day.

[AdvisorB]

So let me see if I understand you, we are at war, and Newt is trying to find ways to protect the American people from a terrorist attack, that could conceivably kill tens-of-thousands, and you want to complain that he's going to create a police state. What are you smoking guy. Whatever it is, it has given you a severe case of paranoia.

I notice that you again have ducked a question. Who are you supporting in the GOP primary?

The case you make against Newt is tenuous at best, and I'm trying to understand the distorted thought process that could start with such faulty premises and end with a silly conclusion. If you're going to attack Newt, you're going to have to do a lot better than that. Why don't you go over to the DUmp, they attack Newt regularly, and for much the same reasons. Maybe they can help you make your case.

[webstersII]

I used the facts of what he has actually stated. You keep spouting your opinion.

Try again when you have something more substantial.

[TAdams8591]

Good news. Good speech and well delivered! : ) Thank you for the thread.