Posted on 10/24/2007 5:45:16 AM PDT by Reaganesque
No offense taken.
I will apologize also, for hurting your sensibilities regarding your relgious beliefs. It must be painful.
I continue to pray for you and I'm sure you do for me as well. Thank you.
The anti-Rudy Freepers aren't "just as hot" about Mitt Romney because Mitt Romney has never been as extreme a liberal as Rudy Giuliani has been, and the notion that John McCain speaks the truth is a joke. Campaign literature from Mitt Romney's 1994 campaign shows that he was running to the right of Ted Kennedy in 1994. He's received some support from homosexual groups. He may have welcomed that support, but he's never pandered to their whole agenda. As a candidate for governor, he said that he'd uphold the state assault weapons ban, but his actions in office did not significantly advance gun control. He's never stood strongly against abortion, but in the decisions that he made as governor, he leaned against the pro-abortion agenda. Finally, the life that he's lived has been a good life. He's been faithful to his wife and children.
In contrast, Rudy Giuliani has been an extremist liberal on all of these positions. He fought against the ban on partial birth abortion and fought for government funding of abortions. He said on national TV that private citizens should not own handguns. He marched in gay pride parades and has appeared on TV in drag. His family life has been a mess. Do any of these things necessarily make him a bad person? Not exactly, but they show that he's completely unqualified to represent the Republican Party.
Bill
States using electronic voting flummoxed the Dems-—they hadn’t figured out how to cheat with them......yet.
It’s been said Gov Jeb won handily second time-—w/ post-2000 electronic voting machines. Same reason.
Also was crossover voting for Bush——Dem Black churchgoers voted Repub b/c of their opposition to gay marriage.
My prayers are with you also. And I pray that I may be humble so that God may use me as a tool in his hands.
But you do need to discuss Catholic, Mormon and Episcopalian beliefs WRT the office of the President? You do realize that the Presidency isn't a religious position?
If YOU have a problem with Huckabee and his religion, I suggest you be as honest and open as I have been, and discuss it.
I don't have a problem with any morally conscious man who seeks office; better than the hypocritical "baptist" who recently occupied the WH. I'm just curious as to why you think being a mormon, episcopalian, or catholic minister would need deep discussion, but you'd give baptists a pass. Are you afraid the former would bring a religious agenda to the office, imposing their theology, but the latter wouldn't? Or do you think the moral values of those faiths, apart from their theological beliefs, are not what you want in office?
Your slams on their faith are so ham handed that they don’t deserve a comment. The impact of LDS doctrine in the area of public policy in modern American is negligible, no more than Catholicism or Islam.
I am not a Mormon, I really don’t know how many Mormons I know personally. As I can see, the only thing that gives them away are the size of the family, the winsomeness of the ladies, the handsomeness of the men, their work ethic, their prosperity, and their advanced education. America has nothing to fear from such people.
Your arguments against their leaders almost seems like you are jealous of their success. Your attempts to link LDS scripture to some imagined public menace are as lunatic as trying to imply that because George W. Bush reads the Bible, Joshua and the battle of Jericho presages Bush’s desire to exterminate the Palestinians.
Don’t forget voodoo, witch doctors, shamans, santa claus, santa teresta, rastafarians like Bob Marley, Hindu looking guys like Bobby Jindal, or patrons of Astrologers like - RONALD REAGAN.
You sir, are a bigot.
colorcountry is a bitter female, not a "sir". But you are right about one thing. She is a bigot.
Patron of Astrology would be NANCY Reagan. I was once a member of the Utah Astrological association, but gave up the juvenile belief about 20 years ago. (unlike Mitt who proclaims to have had a recent conversion from killing babies) You sir are ill informed.
Would YOU vote for a pratictioner of Voodoo? A shaman? A man proclaiming to be Santa Claus? Well I guess that tells us all we need to know about YOU and the seriousness of your vote.
BTW where did you serve your mission?
You have a problem with assertive females. It is the nature of your religion.
The label of “bigot” is used to squelch discussion, it won’t work. Conservatives are not afraid to stand up and be counted for what they believe is right. Our most valued rights granted by the constitution is freedom of religion and of free speech.
If we allow banning anything “we” consider “offensive,” it will be the death of free speech. You can’t call homosexuality sin in Canada now. Should we ban “talk radio” as the Dems want to do? Since Mormons seem to want to stifle what you consider “offensive,” is this what we can expect if a Mormon is in the White House?
Fortunately, for now, our Supreme Court has acknowledged “[t]he fact that society may find speech offensive is not a sufficient reason for suppressing it.” Indeed, we’re not really free to speak if we can only say what you want to hear. Joseph Smith tried this tactic of destoying the press (Expositor) when he was Mayor, militia leader, President and Prophet in Nauvoo, IL. He didn’t get away with it, in fact his act lead to his demise.
These guys seem to be confused about “religious bigotry.” I fear, like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton, they may be the real racist or bigot when accusing others of same. George Washington believed that it’s okay to not vote for an atheist. For George said, “It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.” (So not only would he reject an atheist, but also a non-Christian.)
Now, I wouldn’t vote a Wahhabi Muslim for president because I know that his faith requires him to kill the infidels (at least to make their lives miserable any way he can) and I know his faith will affect his Mid-east foreign policy, an explosive situation. In the same way, I know about the oath of allegiance Mitt Romney has sworn to his church and am concerned that, like the Muslim, he will be conflicted in his oaths and obligations.
However, I've watched him in the debates and I've just been underwhelmed. His strategy is clear: whatever they ask just say "I'd do what Ronald Reagan would do, I'll be optimistic and cheerful". I liked that in the first debate, even the second, but at this point I want more! I want Romney to do something to differentiate himself. And I fear that I'm losing patience, looking at other candidates. Am I alone?
Oh thats right Ronnie divorced Nancy cause she kept pushing that Astrology stuff on him. You are my special mission sweetie.
Well then by your recogning if Nancy saw an astrologer, then Ronnie did also....Gerald Ford was an alcoholic like his wife Betty?
...Since my husband is Mormon, then I am also. How could I possibly be a bigot?? LOL ludicrous!
Well, for as long as I’ve known him (31 yrs.), he is an optimistic and cheerful person. That’s just him, it’s not an act. As to differentiating himself, how do you mean? Personality wise or policy wise?
Are you always this patronizing & "endearing?"
Yet you reply with a comment, even if not directly addressing the concerns.
The impact of LDS doctrine in the area of public policy in modern American is negligible, no more than Catholicism or Islam.
Now this one was a funny comment. Oh, no, Islam hasn't had any more than a...how did you say that?...Oh, yeah, "neglible" effect upon public policies as it pertains to terrorism; as it pertains to foreign policy; as it pertains to... :)
America has nothing to fear from such people.
Fear? Who's talking about fear? It seems to me that folks who don't challenge error are the timid folks--while folks who challenge & confront error--at least the folks I've known, are more of the fearless ones.
What I find ironic is that Joseph Smith & his followers can promote bigoted ideas such as labeling every non-Mormon church leader as "corrupt" and every Christian creed as an "abomination before God." (And then have the outright audacity to claim, "Well, some unnamed personage told us so...so it must be so.") And Mitt Romney's great-great-great uncle (Orson Pratt) can call the church the "great whore of Babylon" and folks give 'em all a free pass.
But if anyone dare point this out, they are labeled as the "bigots." Lots of folks have no moral consistency; they operate only upon feeling.
Your attempts to link LDS scripture to some imagined public menace are as lunatic as trying to imply that because George W. Bush reads the Bible, Joshua and the battle of Jericho presages Bush’s desire to exterminate the Palestinians.
Again, you're clueless. The LDS "scripture" passages I referenced are not some obscure passage dealing with some obscure doctrine. It's the very foundation of the Mormon faith. If a Mormon doesn't believe in the restoration, there is no Mormonism. You can't say the same thing Joshua & Jericho re: the Jewish or Christian faith. You'd have to go to the Christian doctrine of the resurrection to find a doctrine as crucial as the complete apostasy-restoration of Mormonism.
I don’t think Guiliani has anything wrapped up. We are only in the top of the first.
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.