"Uh, I prefer the term 'extermination'. And hey, I'm kinda petty, so how was I supposed to know the difference between a religion and, say, cockroaches?"
Posted on 05/04/2007 5:46:36 AM PDT by Saundra Duffy
Nope.
the building up of the Kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion
Show me where this oath has caused any Mormon federal officeholder to act contrary to the interests of the United States since Utah became a state.
Well, first of all, I have family members who are Mormons, and I can tell you without a doubt that I love them. (But tell me, do you always go around judging the inside of people you just found out about? If so, you have a bigger problem relating to people than I have with Mormons).
If you have listened to Romney at all, he "gets" islamofascism and it's role in global terror.
Well maybe he does, and maybe he doesn't. You can't expect every voter to slice & dice every policy statement of every just-announced candidate when the vote is a year away, now can you? So at this early stage, not having had the opportunity to have a "sit-down" w/my buddy, Mitt, to capture all of his national security nuances, you can't blame folks for just asking big ballpark questions at this point.
I guess you don't understand that it's up to candidate to instill confidence in the voter. (Somehow, you think it's up to the voter to be 100% literate on every candidate and every issue a year before election-time).
So if at this point (you can go ahead and scold me in '08 if I don't know all of Mitt's terrorist nuances by then) if I'm pondering the Q: "Does Mitt instill confidence in me that he knows what he's talking about re: major world religions?"
Well, I don't have the answer to that for his knowledge of Islam, Hinduism, etc., but I already have the answer to that re: historic Christianity. He's flunked knowing what historic Christianity is. And if he's flunked that, then what's my confidence level in what he knows about Islam? (At this point, let's just say, it's not high; but it's open to being "enlightened.")
How do I know he's flunked historic Christianity? Because you can't make up your own version of say, Judaism, and expect everyone to nod their heads & go along with you. You can't come along and say, "See, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob all prayed to these 'council of Gods' in Kolob and were, in turn, informed, that they would soon be new council members. And now, we've set up a temple to circumcize into the Latter-day Judaizers all these dead folks by proxy. Any volunteers?"
You can reform Judaism, but you can't just dessimate it and recast it so that you can no longer recognize it upon reading the Old Testament! When a presidential candidate believes that me, Joe Voter, is an apostate of my faith, I not only don't apologize for being "riled up" over that false assertion, but it gets my gall that so many evangelicals, Protestants and Catholics can just lay there, sleepy-eyed, and conclude, "More abuse! Fire away! (I'll vote for you, anyway)."
“ANd it will work. Even in the early polls, Romney always looses to Hillary.”
It might; the optimistic side of me doubts it, though.
You are actually relying on the early polls? It’s a LOOOONG time until election day.
Of course Romney "flunks historic Christianity" - he's a Mormon and has different beliefs about that than you and me. What possible bearing that could have to his fitness to be Commander in Chief escapes me.
There hasn't been any federal officeholder with the power of the presidency in his hands. I'm all for mormon forest rangers, federal marshals, secret service agents, and even old Orin, since he can't do anything unilaterally.
Don't think I would like Hillary to have taken a similar oath...oh wait...I think she did to Saul Alinsky
Saul Alinsky and the Lessons He Taught Bill and Hillary
A couple of Alinsky's teachings: "In a fight almost anything goes. It almost reaches the point where you stop to apologize if a chance blow lands above the belt."
"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."
You think the Clinton machine won't use these tactics against Mitt?
I haven't noticed any of that either. The only negative I do remember is at the Catholic church they used to talk aabout the 'perfidious Jews'. I remember asking my mom what that meant when they said it! lol
“Nonetheless, I’m cool with Mormons generally as persons.”
Gee, thanks.
We all find out who is right when we're dead. ;-)
Well, that's a different issue. They will fight dirty against any nominee. And lets face it, with Bush's unpopularity, 2008 is going to be a tough year for any nominee.
"Uh, I prefer the term 'extermination'. And hey, I'm kinda petty, so how was I supposed to know the difference between a religion and, say, cockroaches?"
The "bigot" word gets thrown around a lot nowadays...you can't make a salient point in a debate without someone labeling you a bigot. The left has taught many that they can discredit your point by discrediting you.
Pegleg Pete running ?
First of all, those aren't "my" hurdles. (They're self-imposed--at least most of them are).
Secondly those "hurdles" are not comprehensive. Example: Let's say the Democrats elect a WICCA witch. Is the scenario of Dems ushering forward a witch such a "hurdle" mounted by some remote FREEPER that might keep her/him from getting FREEPER votes? (Hardly)
My point is that no matter how many "hurdles" you think I've raised, there's always the chance (well, OK, likelihood), that if you were to ask me in the Summer of '08, I could present even more "hurdles" about a Dem or Independent candidate.
Are all the hurdles I could ever come up with...be it a Repub, Dem, or Indy...simply of my construction? Or could it possibly, just possibly, be the fact that we have few presidential candidates right now which don't have MASSIVE baggage issues?
This is no small issue. Why do I say that? Because I've already seen on far too many of these threads comments made by even (especially) Christians who are outright castigating the voter merely for pointing out that the candidates for EOTUS (Emperor of the US) are missing a few vital pieces of clothing.
If most of these candidates are partially to fully "nude" no matter how folks like to "play dolls" and try to "dress them up," may I suggest that I didn't have anything to do w/denuding them. [My pointing out their state of (un)dress doesn't make my finger responsible for the whole slate of affairs.]
The Catholic bigotry didn’t stop JFK in 1960 and we are a more “tolerant” nation today than we were then.
This too shall pass.
Not true. Mainstream Christianity of the Old and New Testament, has a voice and a logic to it. Any person who can think rationally will find the truth in the Bible, not just historically but also through archaeology. No one should have to wait until death to learn the truth about Christ. Salvation is attainable while we are alive and while we can enjoy the life that God has given to us.
With a strong headwind against us in '08, if we're divided going in we're toast.
You act as if all is lost. Don’t you have any faith in the primary elections and their purpose? You do understand the process of electing a president works, don’t you?
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.