Posted on 01/12/2011 11:32:22 AM PST by Colofornian
Buzz about the 2012 presidential election is already in full swing. But with no real Republican front-runner, really, anyone is game. We’ve been hearing Mitt Romney’s name tossed around as a potential for a while now, but two weeks ago we started hearing another familiar name: Jon Huntsman.
While Huntsman doesn’t have the same national profile as Romney, he has gained status as the ambassador to China and might become more of a threat in the upcoming year. Can you imagine—TWO Mormons (gasp) both running for president?
Now, I understand my next thought doesn’t apply to every Mormon, BUT, I know of a lot of members who vote for politicians based on the fact that they, too, are LDS. And honestly, I know that I’ve been unjustifiably biased toward LDS politicians for the sole reason that we share a religion.
But what if Romney and Huntsman go head to head in 2012? Who will the Mormons vote for?! If their only choice was Romney, I bet a fair number of Mormons wouldn’t really give the other candidates a second thought. But throw Huntsman into the picture and we might actually have to do more research on each candidate’s stances. If they both end up running, it will be interesting to see how members react to the situation over the next two years. Do I sense a hint of BYU vs. Utah-style rivalry in the air?
“I’m a Righteous Gentile”
Not so much...
Psalm 14
“The LORD has looked down from heaven upon the sons of men
To see if there are any who understand,
Who seek after God.
“They have all turned aside, together they have become corrupt; There is no one who does good, not even one.”
Psalm 53
“God looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, that did seek God.
“Every one of them is gone back: they are altogether become filthy; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
No Law makes man righteous - not the Noachide Laws, not the Jewish Law.
Sadly.
Still love ya!
ampu
“I sustain the prophet because he is the Lord’s chosen.”
I would LOVE to see ANY
FACTS
EVIDENCE
LOGICAL ARGUMENT
That would confirm or support that WILD claim...
What do you have PD?
Your opinions and comments are being rebutted, how does that equate to being "savaged"? Hyperbole doesn't work around here.
No one here has said they "dislike mormons" as people. Red herring. Are you drawing inferences that because folks disagree with mormon doctrine that we aren't capable of "liking mormons"? If so, epic fail on your part.
I note also this comment of yours; "I think it's actually flattering. They're only baptizing them because they think they need saving or whatever. If they didn't care about them, would they be doing that?"
You give mormons a pass on the necro-baptizing of Jews, in fact, you endorse it by your use of the word "flattering". Baptising the dead is in clear violation of NT Christian teachings, yet you condemn us for using NT Christian principles and teachings in defense of our positions to you.
"to deal with...remaining alive" really changes the meaning? Really?
Why, if bracketed words bother so much, let's leave your quote intact, then:
If the Supreme Court said that 1-day-old babies of rape victims can have their children killed, you'd be in favor of it? (All because you -- and to quote you -- don't "support forcing you, against your will, to have that child"???
Of course, you NEVER really finished that sentence, did you? To finish the sentence, you really needed to have said: "support forcing you, against your will, to have that child..." remain alive?)
It's only because you never really finished the sentence to begin with that I addressed it...that's hardly "going off the deep end."
But that's typical of "Pro-choicers." To be "pro-choice" grammar-wise is a free-floating intransitive verb. Pro-choicers don't finish the sentence..."choose what?" Flavor of ice cream? What color of ice cream cone?
What's being "chosen?"
BTW, how do you deal with an alive baby who becomes dismembered & feels pain in the process? All A-OK because the baby had the "wrong genes" -- like the genes of a rapist-father? (I mean what? Pre-borns aren't created w/nerves or something?)
The following was making the thread “about” another Freeper:
Your obsession is so deep it is truly sad.
ok thanks for clearing that up for me. I’ll try to remember to make my statements more general.
“I sustain the prophet because he is the Lord’s chosen.”
I would LOVE to see ANY
FACTS
EVIDENCE
LOGICAL ARGUMENT
That would confirm or support that WILD claim...
What do you have PD?
You have been given all you need, numerous times, to find out this truth for yourself. The rest is up to you. Don’t be lazy. Don’t be hard headed or hard hearted. You would LOVE to know the truth in all things right?
Really? What did I miss here?
I realize that’s not how you frame the issue, but that’s my point.
Again, which is worse, forcing mental anguish on a woman, or killing a baby?
Perhaps I should ask, “Why are you against abortion”? Do you believe it’s murder or not?
As for your other, pragmatic point to me in your next post to me, make no mistake, I do not object to the notion that, for now, we should be pushing for the outlawing of abortion except in the case of rape and incest, for the pragmatic reason that it would save more babies than what we have now. But that doesn’t mean I support the notion for moral reasons; I support it for pragmatic reasons. That is, after such a law was firmly and unquestionably the law of the land, I would say the next step would be to convince the populace that it is just a horrendous an act in those rare circumstances. Why? Because I believe it’s murder.
The way I see it, you seem to be the same kind of “pro-lifer” I was about 10 years ago. I told myself, “I think it’s bad to abort a baby, and it should be outlawed if a woman was just being a tramp, but if she was raped, who am I to tell her to get an abortion?” You see my FRiend, that’s just a mental compromise many “pro-lifers” are telling themselves to make themselves feel good, feel as if they “aren’t offending anyone, at least no one who doesn’t deserve to be offended”, yet still somehow being “morally right”. You aren’t. You are, just as Colofornian said, being a pro-choicer using pro life language.
You must decide, why are you opposed to abortion? If you are opposed to it because you believe it’s murder, than you cannot support its notion in any circumstance, ultimately (not pragmatically, do not confuse the two issues as you did above) but ULTIMATELY, you must oppose it in every instance. If not, then there is essentially no difference between your position and the pro-choicer, because the pro-choicer says, “A woman shouldn’t be forced to have a baby in any circumstance, if she doesn’t want to, because if she decides it’s too much of a burden, then it’s unjust for us to force her to have the baby”.
It’s no different than the example of rape. You see, that’s the insidious nature of the “abortion in the case of rape” question: It forces you to take the pro-choice stance, a stance with a slippery slope leading one to the only rational conclusion in that case: ANY time it’s “inconvenient” or a “burden” for a woman to have a baby, it’s perfectly fine for her to terminate the baby.
After all, if it’s ok to let a woman abort her baby when she was raped, because it may cause her mental anguish to force her to have the baby in that case, then why isn’t ok to let her abort a baby if she slept around and her promiscuity eventually caught up with her? In both instances, it’s causing her “anguish” to force her to carry the baby to term.
So really, it’s a question only you can answer for yourself: Why are you opposed to abortion? Answer that publicly or for yourself if you wish, but it seems to me it’s something you need to face, for yourself.
Make no mistake though, I’m not advocating an “all or nothing” approach to the evil of abortion. Please do not equate my intent for posting to you with that again. I fully support the plan to outlaw abortion except for the case of rape or incest NOW, because that has a better shot of becoming any kind of law, NOW, but that is certainly not where I will “rest”. One is a question of pragmatism, the other, a question of morality. I’m addressing the moral issue here, not a pragmatic strategy.
You know UCLA did this interesting study a while back. They did this just prior to the Internet take-off (before seemingly almost everybody in America got Internet porn exposure) -- so they were able to pinpoint three groups of people...those with massive levels of exposure to porn; moderate level; and little-to-none exposure.
Sure 'nough...the correlation was there...they found the greater exposure to porn, the more likely they were to recommend jail time in rape cases.
Tell me something, have you ever been at a party where a woman became vulnerable to exploitation because she consumed too much alcohol? Even if such a woman technically "consented" -- and even if it wasn't technically rape -- does that lessen the immoral exploitation that has/could occur(ed)?
Well, replace the alcohol with drug addictions -- and there you have many prostitutes & filmed prostitutes. Yes, they "consented"; yes, it's not "rape." But, also, "yes" -- these women aren't much different, fix-wise, than a woman abusing alcohol at a party. But, you seem all satisfied and "all knowing" that nobody's being "harmed" or exploited in all of these "transactions"...so hey, why bother with having to deal with how we've indirectly exploited others, right?
...considering we're the largest consumers of pornography in the world, I don't think your message has much resonance.
So now we move to establishing a moral compass based upon how popular the regional sewage pool has become? All I can say is, hey, just because some have become accustomed to sewage water in their well -- and they think it tastes great -- I hardly think that these people are the "cultural connoisseurs" we have to cater to as to establishing our moral tastes!
Now look at you, defending Hollywood.
You must have skipped over my words too fast...read again the qualifier I gave in that excerpt: ...for decades before it, too, went completely South... [If you want to accuse me of elevating Hollywood at some juncture of the past, fine, fire away...but you're off-target here].
...I do assume is that it's none of your business what Marriott chooses to do with its in-room programming.
How ironic! Of course, what Marriott-the-porn-industry does is "none of my business!" (As in Marriott gets none of my business over these past 20 years because of it!!!)
And cleanhotels.com proves I'm not alone.
If you don't like the way they do business, avoid them.
No, I'm not limited to that at all. I can also use that First Amendment you touted & advise others to avoid them! If you have corrupted water coming in thru your pipes, is the answer to simply turn off the faucets & go buy bottled water? I mean have you forgotten about this little concept of "neighborhood" -- and potential implications to our neighbors?
I mean, do I want rapists being judged by jurors from my neighborhood whose exposure to porn has deepened the myth that some women want to be raped?
I mean, were you aware that even pro-porn people boycotted Marriott in 2009? Why? Because the porn movies Marriott was showing didn't tend to "protect" its filmed porn prostitutes in action by having them wear condoms, which the boycotting organizations thought subjected these filmed prostitutes to greater risks of getting AIDS!
Here -- go to the link itself and see! Marriott Boycotted Over Porn -- or, you can just read this excerpt: AIDS Healthcare and Pink Cross foundations have organized a boycott of Marriott hotels over porn. The protest is not about the Mormon-founded chain's in-room, X-rated offerings. No, that's just fine. The problem, according to the groups, is the hotel company's palette of on-demand smut that features actors who do not use condoms.
I'm a Marriott rewards member and I love their Courtyard hotels. I'm not going to stop patronizing them simply because some busy-body has an objection to their in-room programming. [NF]
(Yeah, I know...even more irony!!! The pro-porn groups I linked to above -- AIDS Healthcare and Pink Cross foundations -- were seemingly a LOT MORE provoked by Marriott's porn than so-called "conservatives" like you!!!! Hilarious...and revealing to where you stand on the immorality totem poll!!!)
I'll be darned if someone like you has any business telling me what to do. You don't.
OK. (don't watch child porn...oops...sorry...can't help myself...but that's OK. I know. The govt has already told you that's a "no-no"...so you don't...and you won't...well, at least not until they legalize it...since your moral code doesn't seem to transcend much beyond "what is illegal is immoral.")
Colo, I’d watch this noob. It seems he’s been sent over from the COB in order to play with the nasty anti’s.
Look at his screen name.
(Oh, I get it...you watched porn flicks -- some which probably had just-turned-18 porn prostitutes...but if I even hint that if the govt ever legalizes watching a 17 yo engaged in a porn act... --yes, Virginia, a 17 yo in such a thing is "child porn" -- since the govt seems to define many of your moral boundaries -- that becomes "offensive" to you? Nice try.)
Well, good for you. There's moral hope for you in this violent culture, after all.
If you can’t see the difference between a rape victim aborting the baby in the first trimester and a woman snuffing out a 1-day old baby then I can’t help you.
Wanna explain, oh, medically-wise one, oh biological guru, what a short simple trip down the birth canal does to expand the life or personhood of a pre-born?
What? Do they pick up an extra leg down the canal? Arm? Facial portals? Maybe the birth canal has a factory-line locale where they add some of the organs, maybe?
What is your obsession with the rape exception? It’s less than .05% of all abortions.
It's real simple: If you cannot defend "the least of these, my brethren" -- as Jesus said we should do -- then what does He say is the end-result of that?
“He [Jesus] will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ 46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” (Matthew 25)
You see, Nut Flush...'tis easy for EVERYBODY to "hate" the life of a pre-born who carries the genes of a rapist!
* Society hates the rapist & his family!
* Feminists especially hate any living personal reminder of what happened!
* The abortion industry loves to hate him or her -- because they know by doing so that converts into more $ long-run.
* Family members think they are "well meaning" by supposedly "helping" their family female victim "get over" the rape...as if they had a giant eraser and just erasing a chalkboard erases what happens.
* The woman herself "hates" the compounded nature of the crime -- and will project her bitterness onto the baby. (But perhaps less often than we project onto her!)
If we can't love the most vulnerable, most hated, most innocent of beings such as a little baby who has harmed no one...
...and protect him or her from the vented-hatred of painful dismemberment, then who are we as a people but ones to be deeply pitied for yet another reason than what you said in another post: considering we're the largest consumers of pornography in the world...
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.