Posted on 08/11/2012 4:42:48 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
Except for his unfortunate go along to get along support of TARP, bailouts, stimulus spending and the increased credit limit, etc, Ryan is a pretty good choice. Probably the best choice of the RINOS that were on Romney's short list. I support Ryan for the vice presidency. Wish he were at the top of the ticket, though.
But I still cannot and will not support the grand father of ObamaCare. Romney still loves and brags about his bastard brainchild, RomneyCare, even today when he knows what an anti-liberty socialist POS it is.
And the fact that he advocated that abortion should be safe and legal in America for over three decades of his adult lifetime and even advocated that Roe v Wade should be supported and sustained as settled law precludes any consideration whatsoever by this pro-life Christian for Myth Romney for the presidency.
And the fact that he boasted that he would be better for "gay rights" than Ted Kennedy, and proved it just increases my resistance.
That, and his penchant for gun control, his continuing support for global warming, gays in the scouts, gays in the military, and his record of appointing liberal judges makes it all but impossible for me to support him.
Lastly, we're having a bit of changeover on our moderator staff. At least two moderators resigned this afternoon after I flatly refused to rein in a so-called anti-Mormon "bigot" on FR. Well, if being in opposition to false prophets and false prophecy makes a Christian believer a bigot, then I guess I'm a bigot. I've posted before that I flat do not believe that the Book of Mormon is the true word of God. Nor do I believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. The Christian bible warns us to be weary of false prophets and that I am. Romney being the presumptive Republican nominee does not change that fact.
Say it again - perhaps he is sleeping.
Now, let's get a few things straight.
There are various forms of what passes for Catholicism that exist in our land. It would be entertaining to watch you try to defend your version to my pastor. My Catholicism is not the Kumbaya variety. I don't sit around the old campfire crooning Kumbaya while selling out Catholic doctrine and conservative principles just to make nice with the enemies of both. I don't live in a Pollyanna world in which something becomes right because I really, REALLY, really want it to be.
Romney says he will repeal and REPLACE Obamacare. That means renaming the overwhelming majority of Obamacare as National Romneycare. What on earth makes you think otherwise??? The pissant had a track record in Massachusetts and George McGovern in his prime could not have done worse on issues that matter.
I don't really give a damn what Mittler's "stated policies" may be this week. Governor Etch-a-Sketch has an entire career of lies, deceptions, convenient changes of what passes for his conscience, and all purpose GOP elitist windtunnelism behind him and he is not about to change his ways at 65. Anyone who believes any of his self-serving lies is a fool. Lucy is teeing up that football, Charlie Brown, and this time she REALLY promises not to pull it away at the last second.
Romney never appointed a single "pro-life judge" in Massachusetts. Why would he start now? On this issue: Obama vs. Romney: Advantage to neither. You owe an apology to "gray" for accusing Mittler of being a shade of it.
Please stop the silly pretension that I HAVE to make what you erroneously call a prudential, pragmatic judgment as to which of these gross evils (Obozo or Mittler) is "the least bad alternative." I don't have to make any such judgment. I can refuse to sell my soul and I can vote for Tom Hoefling all in one election while voting AGAINST Obozo AND Mittler.
My Catholic Faith tells me to be accountable to God for the decisions I make in life, including election decisions. My Catholic Faith does not suggest that I compromise with either of this year's major party POTUS evils and materially cooperate with militant pro-aborts, and militant cheerleaders for all things rump ranger. Sorry about your faith. I don't normally argue religion here but you are mischaracterizing Catholicism while you claim to be Catholic. You are effectively claiming that God wants Catholics to support an ahortion-loving, lavender queen supporting excuse for a POTUS candidate. You are thereby scandalizing Catholics. Silence is not an option in the face of scandal.
Is it now unacceptably "hyper purist" for Catholics to refuse material cooperation with the mass murder of babies and with the everlasting promotion of fudge-packing??? What would "moderation" look like in your imagination?
"Atheistic communism???" That is promoted by the GOP-E as well as by the Obozos. The only difference is that the Romney types worship two false gods: MONEY and POWER! And the Obozo types simply worship power (and NOT in our name). I was not aware that either Obozo or Romney are in slow motion in trying to wreck our republic. Any evidence for that "prudential judgment" other than candidates' self-serving lies?
Everyone IS a sinner. It's a fallen world. See Mr. and Mrs. Adam at the very outset. That is not the standard for repudiating politicians. The standard is that neither Obozo nor Romney have any redeeming features whatsoever to be POTUS. I have voted for each and every GOP nominee from Nixon in 1968 to McCain in 2008. That constitutes (with the exception of Ronaldus Maximus) more than a fair amount of compromise. If I had those votes to cast again, I would not vote for Gerald Ford and perhaps not for Nixon in 1968. Ask yourself how many GOP voters of such consistency will refuse to vote for the likes of Romney.
How many babies' lives are you willing to trade for slightly lower taxes or a bit less regulation? If you claim to be a Catholic (which covers a broad territory in the US because of a generation or two of bad bishops whose successors today are far better and resulting bad catechesis), then you belong to a Church which (whatever your pastor may claim) is famed for resisting evil and not promoting it or compromising with it. Prudence has nothing to do with it. For nearly 2,000 years, we have turned shovels of dirt on the graves of each and every enemy. How many divisions has Stalin NOW??? Neither Obozo nor Romney will escape that fate. That is guaranteed by the very Highest Authority.
As to "contact" with the world, I was a Reagan State Chairman when he challenged Feckless Ford. I was also a staffer when Reagan was a convention candidate in 1968. How about you? Singing Kumbaya with our enemies around the old campfire does not count!
In ancient pagan imperial Rome, the "prudent" thing to do was for Christians (Catholics) to throw a few grains of wheat in the fire to indicate a willingness to worship the false god that was each emperor. Then the pater familia could go back to his home, his hearth and his family and his bakery or whatever and live his life. The ones we admire were willing to be torn apart by wild beasts at the Circus Maximus rather than worship (even in that minor way) a false god. There were emperors such as Marcus Aurelius who were near infinitely superior to such trash as Romney or Obozo. There were also Caligulas, Neros, Commoduses and Diocletians who more closely resemble our modern politicians (in BOTH parties) whether you want to admit it or not.
55 million sliced, diced and hamburgerized innocent babies and counting. Congratulations on "prudence" and its results.
Bookmark for rereading later.
Ping to #4183. Instructions for you.
the religion of the candidate should not be a big issue,
Religious bigotism is very, very dangerous for conservatives
__________________________________________________
Youre OK with a Moslem president then ???
and you jump on those FReepers who diss Obama for his religious leanings ???
Ramadan in the White House and and the Moslem Brotherhood in the State department are OK with you ???
Thank you for posting that, my FRiend ... you have redeemed what was otherwise a real sewer of a thread.
Do you know what Christianity is?
Nero fiddled while Rome burned...
yeah there is there resemblance in fiddle faddle Willard...
He doesnt speak up for the country which is burning down around his manicured ears...
Religious bigotism is very, very dangerous for conservatives.
***Except that what is going on here isn’t religious bigotism (bigotry). When Jesus confronted false teachers in His day he called them ‘vipers’ and ‘Sons of the Devil’. Was Jesus a bigot when He did that?
My opinion: If the Religion forums are causing this much strife among conservatives and cannot mirror our own First Ammendment, then they need to go.
***Go ahead and suggest that to JimRob, see what he says. He’ll probably take note that this article isn’t in the religion forum, and that the articles which have been in the forum are NOT causing strife among conservatives. What caused so much strife among conservatives was faux-conservatives such as yourself coming onto this thread and making a big deal out of something they know little or nothing about.
However, for you that really means:
freedom of religion only if I deem it be a conversation of which I approve, for the length of time I approve and the subject direction that I approve.
Otherwise, it must be relegated to a darkened room with hushed tones and low lights, lest I be upset.
Under no circumstances, must the conversation be about the religion of a potential presidential candidate if the are Mormon.
Placemarker
Oh, the whining and crying about "bigotry" from mormons and mormon defenders....when for 180 years the mormon church, its leaders and members have been preaching hatred against Christianity and claiming to be the "one true and living church on the face of the earth"....I guess some of these mormonism defenders are not aware that their own denomination is and has been scorned in temple rituals and chapel sermons by hundreds of thousands of mormons, including Mitt Romney who took part in these rituals prior to 1990..
From the above link:
"The ceremony includes a type of melodrama which explains the LDS view of the creation and fall of man. In the past these dramas were acted out by Mormon temple workers playing such parts as that of Elohim (God the Father) , Jehovah (Jesus), Lucifer, etc. Today, most temples utilize video, making live actors no longer necessary.
Mormon Apostle John Widtsoe stated, "Joseph Smith received the temple endowment and its ritual, as all else he promulgated, by revelation from God" (Joseph Smith - Seeker After Truth, pg. 249). Because of this, Mormons have been told that it can never change. Royden Derrick, a Mormon Seventy, wrote, "Temple ordinances instituted in the heavens before the foundation of the world are for the salvation and exaltation of God's children. It is important that the saving ordinances not be altered or changed, because all of those who will be exalted, from the first man, Adam, to the last, must be saved on the same principles" (Temples in the Last Days, 1987, pg. 36). However, in April of 1990, the ceremony did go through some dramatic revisions, including the portion where Lucifer hires a minister to preach what Mormons view as false doctrine (termed "the orthodox religion" in the ceremony). The pastor is first interviewed by Lucifer who asks him if he has "been to college and received training for the ministry." Lucifer tells the pastor that if he is able to convert people to his "orthodox religion," he will pay him well. Lucifer then takes the preacher to two characters portraying "Adam and Eve" and tells him they "desire religion." The preacher tries to convince Adam to believe in a God who fills the universe, yet is so small that he can dwell in a person's heart, and a God that is surrounded by a myriad of beings who have been saved by grace. He also tries to convince Adam of the perils of hell, "a lake of fire and brimstone where the wicked are cast." Adam, the "good guy" in the scenario, rejects his teachings. Of course this is intended to make Christian pastors to look like hirelings of Satan bent on convincing God's children to believe in a false gospel. Such a scene was highly offensive to Christians as well as to many Mormons. Today, all mention of this minister has been dropped entirely from the ceremony."
Did Mitt find "Such a scene highly offensive" ?? We do not know, but he certainly took part in this ritual prior to 1990, including during his wedding ceremony to Ann!
Today, 52,000 mormon missionaries spread out over the world claiming to Christians that their Christian faith is bogus, and salvation can be reached ONLY by taking part in rituals in the mormon temple....Folks, THAT is "bigotry".
Otherwise, it must be relegated to a darkened room with hushed tones and low lights, lest I be upset.
***Exactly right. It was SF4W who got this thread moved to the smoky backroom, as noted upthread by JimRob. So, for her, it really does mean “freedom of religion only if I deem it be a conversation of which I approve, for the length of time I approve and the subject direction that I approve.”
Discussing matters of religion is a First Amendment issue and to follow your advice is to censor those rights. Since there is a separate religion forum set it, it shouldn't bother you to ignore it for the other forums present here in FR.
But lets be clear - what a person believes in their religion most times reflects upon their character and suitablity for political office. It is not bigotry to evaluate a person on that. It is very dangerous to ignore that portion of a person's phlosophical make up.
I hold every single politician accountable for their actions, not their words.
***Then you won’t be voting for the lying, baby-killing gun-grabbing statist?
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.