ROMNEY'S CANDIDACY: BEYOND FACE VALUE (represents the long-lost American ideal)

NY POST ^ | May 18, 2007 | VOX POPULI

[Liz]

THE ISSUE: Whether Mitt Romney can become the first Mormon president. (Rich Lowry "Mauling Mitt For Mormonism," PostOpinion, May 15)

**** As a conservative, Romney is among the candidates for president I like most. The appearance of a squeaky-clean "Ozzie and Harriet" family life is no small part of his appeal. We need a leader who lives the way we should all aspire to.....the liberal media who idolize the likes of Bill Clinton do not feel the same way. Manhattan

**** Romney should be given a fair shake.....his policies and leadership qualities should be scrutinized, not his religious affiliation. That kind of bigotry should have gone by the wayside with the 1960 election of John F. Kennedy, a Roman Catholic....beyond the good looks and stylish presentation of Romney, is a highly intelligent, very driven and skillful politician. He's a caring man with a nice family. Why should he be criticized for having that? It used to be the American ideal; maybe it's time to have it again. Manhattan

[FastCoyote]

[This, coupled with your repugnant remarks about the women of our church leaves me to assume you are agnostic or atheist. Perhaps I am wrong,]

Wrongo, buckaroo. Since Mormons were the original church (600 Ad Nephites and Lamanites), I am but a splinter group to Mormons (you have lots of them). I belong to the FastCoyote branch of Mormonism, the only True church.

I believe Joseph Smith was a miracle working, rock gazing, fornicator and also my spiritual light. No way I’d follow one of those apostate Christian sects, though we are all Christians if we are Mormons.

Joseph Smith believed we are all Gods in the making, and he was right! I have just moved up my timetable a little bit and become God here, on my Planet Earth! So, you see, I am neither agnostic, nor atheistic, because I believe I’m numero Uno, the Big Enchilada, equal to Christ! Just as every other crystal gazing FastCoyote Mormon believes. And I have Testimony, plenty of it too!

“but you have never been definitive on the point. “

Sure I have, I am God, and you can’t prove otherwise given Mormon Doctrine. Got any Spirit Wives for me?

“Colofornian on the other hand has never told us the name of the church he walks into.”

Good for him.

“He says we are all out to get him.”

You guys are the ones calling for the bannings, not us.

“However, you will never find in any of my posts, past, present or future that I have said a negative word about someone else’s faith or church.”

The only one who would have absolutely no opinion would be a relativist agnostic (by definition). So seems a bit odd for you to claim that of me.

“That is called the lack of bigotry.”

No, it is called bigotry against anyone who has a religious conviction that disagrees with yours. By calling others bigots, you hope to squelch anyone from revealing the “lumpy” history of the Mormon Church.

“For the record, again, I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.”

So am I, a Reformed FastCoyote sect. We are exactly the same, except my sect adds the Book of Zelph and uses magic decoder rings instead of seer stones.

[Colofornian]

You said: Many islands and even parts of South America have practiced head-hunting, cannibalism as not simply tribal warfare, but attach religious significance to it. We weren’t talking about any country in South America we were speaking of the USofA.

And of course the world isn't getting smaller. (And we don't have immigrants coming in the front or back doors).

Our government and much of society offers the same legitimacy to the Indians and Satanists as any other religion.

So you and our government confer legitimacy on peyote usage and Satanic rituals? (You said that with a straight face?) But aside from that, let's apply this to this thread's focus: A POTUS candidate whose faith include peyote usage or is an open Satanist...that wouldn't affect your vote in any way if they are elect-able and otherwise align with your social issues and position statement values?

Hey, if you want to bow down to a couple of Tulips have at it, just don't call me a bigot if I don't bow down with you.

With this example, I wasn't focusing on the right or lack thereof to bow down to tulips. I was focusing on your description that such religious practices are "legitimate." You're the one who injected that word into an overall umbrella word that should be accorded all religious practices.

Go on say it clearly: "Yes, C, I believe all religious practices, no matter how extreme, be it historical temple prostitution, are legitimate practices as long as it's a U.S. citizen practicing it."

[George W. Bush]

It would appear that you are bigoted against quite a few ex-mormons.

No. I am actually myself strongly anti-Mormon. But I don't consider that a political view. Unlike some flat-earthers around here, I don't have to go to the same church as the guy I vote for. For instance, I don't expect to vote for that huckster from Arkansas, Huckabee, a Southern Baptist minister. I oppose Giuliani, not because he is Catholic or even because he is such a bad Catholic that he can't even receive the sacraments of his church, I oppose him because he's a leftwinger who belongs in the Dim party.

I believe the mods have tiptoed for quite a good reason. To believe that this issue would not spill out into a Romney presidency is to avoid reality - so to quench the heated debate that is occurring here is only to throw a rug over burning embers in the living room and go on vacation.

Uh, right. So he avoided his extreme Mormonism as a CEO and as governor just so he could spring them on us from the White House, start printing three-dollar-bills and talking through his hat?

Arguing with some of you is useless. Maybe we can start recruiting new members just for the comedy value the rest of you offer.

As we used to say, "Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to through life, son."

[George W. Bush]

Colofornian on the other hand has never told us the name of the church he walks into. He says we are all out to get him.

Some of us keep hoping that you will if it will shut this crap up so it no longer befouls our political threads. Need any firearms?

[George W. Bush]

Yeah. My son, who is a staunch conservative, has given up on FR because, as he put it, “So many of the people on it are just vile.”

You have to wonder if the Klowns gave up making fun of us because we had exceeded their best efforts all on our own. These kind of threads are a good example.

[Colofornian]

Still not minding your manners?

If you keep using a poster's name in a thread and don't ping them to let them know you've done so, as you've done twice on this thread, not only is that not deemed good manners, upstanding protocol, etc. but in the "Christian" world" this is otherwise known as gossip.

Now granted some gossip isn't always intentionally done. Many FREEPER posters have inadvertently done it, and have apologized when reminded. But since you did it twice, a pattern has emerged.

It's not a good representation of a person's faith to gossip in such a way--to speak about a person away from their face.

May I remind you of D&C84:55-56: "...vanity and unbelief have brought the whole [LDS] church under condemnation. And this condemnation resteth upon the children of Zion, even all." [So mind your vanities]

As such, if you look at the way JoeSmith lambasted some of his followers by name in the D&C Mormon scriptures, I guess you have a good role model to follow. But you have the wrong target: Joseph called the LDS followers deniers of the faith--heart adulterers (see D&C 63:16,63). Those aren't my words, BTW, for LDS folk. Those are JoeSmith's words.

[JAKraig]

Go on say it clearly: “Yes, C, I believe all religious practices, no matter how extreme, be it historical temple prostitution, are legitimate practices as long as it’s a U.S. citizen practicing it.”

Yes, Colofornian I believe all religious practices as long as they are not illegeal are legitimate practices. I won’t participate with most of them because I don’t believe in them but I don’t hold a person’s religion against them. I do hold their actions in society against them if they are anti-social.

The Catholic Church long ago excommunicated all the heretic protestants and still teaches they will be consigned to Hell. Does that make Catholics Bigots? You see they teach about what happens in the next life and don’t project those beliefs in a negative way upon the people who are not now Christian in this life. In fact just the opposite is true, they try to help all us “non-believers” into believing the truth by preaching to us. It can be quite annoying but shows a great kindness and love for us. What is it that I can find evil about someone who wants to help me because they believe that I am wrong but does not want to punish me for it.

[Colofornian]

Yes, Colofornian I believe all religious practices as long as they are not illegeal are legitimate practices

Well, unlike your vague crit of me as supposedly spouting "half-truths," I'll be specific in my critique of your view here.

While I can commend your somewhat consistent view, consistency isn't my highest value. Truth is. Discernment to the truth is.

I simply don't believe we should be legitimizing every religious practice under the Son. Apparently you think we should in this land. I respectfully disagree.

[George W. Bush]

f you keep using a poster's name in a thread and don't ping them to let them know you've done so, as you've done twice on this thread, not only is that not deemed good manners, upstanding protocol, etc. but in the "Christian" world" this is otherwise known as gossip.

But you guys keep telling us these Mormons aren't Christians. So why are they bound by your "Christian rules"?

[Saundra Duffy]

I don’t like the politics of personal destruction. No one except God Almighty knows what’s in Giuliani’s heart OR MINE FOR THAT MATTER.

[JAKraig]

I too can commend your search for the truth, you evidently believe you have found it, wonderful and true congratulations are in order. It just so happens that there are some Indians, Mormons, Catholics, Jews, Moslems and Tulip worshipers who think that they have found the truth and would not like you becoming king and outlawing their truth.

[Sam Ketcham]

The GOP (Goop) will be relegated to the dustbin of history as will the USA of A

[Colofornian]

would not like you becoming king and outlawing their truth.

Not sanctioning legitimacy upon all religious beliefs under the sun, and outlawing them, are entirely two different aspects...in case you haven't noticed.

I haven't seen any calls to make any aspect of the LDS faith "illegal," here, have you? So why the "straw man," scarecrow & all?

I haven't sent out invites to my "throneroom," just to my Tulipville backyard.

[Colofornian]

But you guys keep telling us these Mormons aren't Christians. So why are they bound by your "Christian rules"?

My rules? (What? I just made all that notification/protocol/gossip stuff up off the top of my head?)

Sounds like that's a statement coming from someone who has at least gentle leanings toward "your truth is your truth and my truth is my truth" & ne'er does truth transcend anything.

Oh, and BTW, even if you're only responding to somebody else's post, like you did in #124...if you are initiating a post that mentions another poster name...ping 'em. (So my previous admonishment to DL applies to you as well)

As for your comment of providing firearms to another poster so I can be silenced, is "Bush" short for "Bushwhack-o?" :)

[Pan_Yan]

What criteria do you use to determine electability? Unless you have some formula that strictly screens out interference and focuses solely on the candidates aren't you at the mercy of the media?

The media has sucessfully destroyed many people who might have been good Presidents, and sheltered many who turned out terribly.

Do you chose a candidate based on their ability to manipulate the media, or their ability to survive media scrutiny?

George W. Bush should have almost fallen into the unelectable field in 2000. He was up against a weak field, however. In 2004 he survived the media's best, including slander, lies and a full court assult on his intelligence and character. Was he your candidate of choice in the primaries both times? If so, your formula works well - he won both times. But conservatives got to hold the mixed bag called "compassionate conservatism."

Personally I believe that given two able candidates conservatism will beat liberalism every time. The problem seems to be getting a true conservative who is an able candidate to run. The gauntlet is fierce and unfortunately most who seek the grand prize do so for all the wrong reasons.

[JAKraig]

In my mind if someone says that something I do is illegitimate it is nearly the same as illegal. If it is illegal then it can be made to stop. It seems like that is what you want, to force others into not believing anything but approved doctrines.

If you don’t like what I believe then teach me about the wonders of Tulip worship don’t tell me how stupid I am for worshiping the Pope. (I know you didn’t say that but I’m trying to make a point.)

[nowandlater]

You guys are very insulting.

[JAKraig]

The problem is that the media for the most part works against any Conservative candidate. The ONLY way a candidate regardless of his words can get past the Liberal MSM is to raise money and spend it on air time. It is sad but true.

Yes I supported Bush and for the same reason. I can think of any number of terrible mistakes he has made but when I think of the alternatives of Al Gore of John Kerry as President during 9/11 I shudder.

A good part of manipulating the media depends upon the ability of the candidate to survive media scrutiny. When CBS could not come up with dirt on Bush it tried to manufacture dirt. Had it not been for a Freeper it might have stood.

There is simply no value in voting for someone who could not be elected, if so I would write in the name of Ronald Regan. Yes he is dead and cannot be elected but in my opinion Mr. Hunter is in the same boat, he is dead to the MSM and since he does not have any money behind him he cannot be resurrected. If that changes I will be one of the first to man his phone banks but I just don’t see it.

If conservatism won every time we would never have had a Clinton, twice!

I truly believe the ideas of Newt Gingrich to be the very best of conservatism but I also believe that even with money he could not be elected. I think that Tom Delay would be better President than even Mr. Hunter but do you think he would have a snow balls chance in Hell of beating Hillary?

Voting for the most conservative candidate in the primary is about like voting for a third party candidate. You are making a statement but you don’t get anything done.

[George W. Bush]

My rules? (What? I just made all that notification/protocol/gossip stuff up off the top of my head?)

Well, if they're Christians, then those rules apply. If they aren't, then they don't.

Right. As though a single comment could be made on one of these threads without you finding it anyway.

As for your comment of providing firearms to another poster so I can be silenced, is "Bush" short for "Bushwhack-o?"

"Take the shotgun and lock yerself in the root cellar, Ma. Thar's a Mormon runnin' fer president!"

[DanielLongo]

LOL Colofornian I'M PINGING YOU!!!

Somebody call the WaaaaaaAAAAAAMbulance!!!