Posted on 01/26/2012 11:13:18 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
yeah. I’m thinking a certain hot babe and Newt.
What’s wrong with that?
I almost caved on GB but when I saw who was on his bench I went all in.
Romney has no advisors I can think of that I know.
I doubt he going to have very deep bench.
I doubt he is going to represent one scintilla of my ideals.
At this point, It’s Newt or nothing.
Don’t care.
The Country Club and their mascot wench, Anne Coulter have gone too far.
They were scheduled to be wiped out after the massacre at Mountain Meadows, but the Civil War made it tough to get soldiers to Utah to kill them all. Ergo, we have them today.
That would be perfect, but Romney would say he’s never heard about “such things.”
Romney is not to blame and not responsible for anything: not his trustees, not his SuperPAC ads, not Bain’smisfortunes, only the good, not his off shore and oover seas investments - nothing!
We must fight on! The Time for a 3rd Party is not now! We should be ready—but we must wait till super Tuesday! Now is not the time to fold—we must keep riding to the sound of the guns. Mitt —if tapped by the GOP—will pick someone from out west or from the south—a Conservative to be sure—but not a Tea Party favorite like Palin. He is doing a McCain—and will lose the debates and the election—unless something happens. A scandal with Obama—a war—a game changer. Too soon to toss in the towel.
You are quite naive. According to Mormons, everyone in the world is their anscestor. Just as the islamists believe that Moses and Jesus were muslims even htough ilam did not exist either duing Moses OR Jesus.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,449727,00.html
EXCERPT:
Holocaust Survivors Want Mormons to Stop Baptizing Dead Jews
November 11, 2008
Holocaust survivors said Monday they are through trying to negotiate with the Mormon church over posthumous baptisms of Jews killed in Nazi concentration camps, saying the church has repeatedly violated a 13-year-old agreement barring the practice.
Leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints say they are making changes to their massive genealogical database that will make it more difficult for names of Holocaust victims to be entered for posthumous baptism by proxy, a rite that has been a common Mormon practice for more than a century.
But Ernest Michel, honorary chairman of the American Gathering of Holocaust Survivors, said that is not enough. At a news conference in New York City on Monday, he said the church also must “implement a mechanism to undo what you have done.”
“Baptism of a Jewish Holocaust victim and then merely removing that name from the database is just not acceptable,” said Michel, whose parents died at Auschwitz. He spoke on the 70th anniversary of Kristallnacht, the Nazi-incited riots against Jews.
“We ask you to respect us and our Judaism just as we respect your religion,” Michel said in a statement released ahead of the news conference. “We ask you to leave our six million Jews, all victims of the Holocaust, alone, they suffered enough.”
Michel said talks with Mormon leaders, held as recently as last week, have ended. He said his group will not sue, and that “the only thing left, therefore, is to turn to the court of public opinion.”
In 1995, Mormons and Jews inked an agreement to limit the circumstances that allow for the proxy baptisms of Holocaust victims. Ending the practice outright was not part of the agreement and would essentially be asking Mormons to alter their beliefs, church Elder Lance B. Wickman said Monday in an interview with reporters in Salt Lake City.
“We don’t think any faith group has the right to ask another to change its doctrines,” Wickman said. “If our work for the dead is properly understood ... it should not be a source of friction to anyone. It’s merely a freewill offering.”
Michel’s decision to unilaterally end discussion of the issue through a news conference leaves the church uncertain about how to proceed, Wickman said.
Baptism by proxy allows faithful Mormons to have their ancestors baptized into the 178-year-old church, which they believe reunites families in the afterlife.
Using genealogy records, the church also baptizes people who have died from all over the world and from different religions. Mormons stand in as proxies for the person being baptized and immerse themselves in a baptismal pool.
Only the Jews have an agreement with the church limiting who can be baptized, though the agreement covers only Holocaust victims, not all Jewish people. Jews are particularly offended by baptisms of Holocaust victims because they were murdered specifically because of their religion.
Good for you. You won’t vote for those guys, eh.
So Ron Paul is totall un-votable for,eh?
I get it. And there’s nobody else vote worty.
Roger that.
So we see you on the flip side of another Obamba term.
Well, one thing, you guys got the House & Senate chairmanships covered, eh?
Hard to believe her contract with Fox prohibits her from endorsing a candidate when she often gets asked if she’s endorsing when she’s interviewed on Fox
Mormons baptize all the dead people they can find.
They believe people who have died can be baptized by proxy, thus allowing them the opportunity to become Mormons after their death. The idea behind baptism for the dead is this: God wants each of us to be with him in glory. To effect this, he allows us to accept the Mormon gospel here on earth. If we do not, he sends us to a “spirit prison” until the Mormon gospel has been preached to us there and we convert.
Mormons believe that their church has missionaries in the “spirit world” who are busy spreading the Mormon gospel to dead people who have not yet received it. Should any of these dead people want to convert to Mormonism, they are required to abide by all its rules, one of which is water baptism. Hence the need for proxies to receive the corporeal waters of baptism.
You might be surprised to learn that the Mormon church has teams of men and women microfilming records of Catholic and Protestant parishes, cemetery records, birth and death certificates—virtually any sort of record pertaining to past generations. Temple Mormons hope, in time, to have all of the dead of previous generations baptized posthumously into the Mormon church.
Baptism for the Dead v. Baptism of Desire
One reason Mormons advance the practice of baptism for the dead is a sense of justice. Billions of people have died without ever hearing the gospel of Christ and without having the chance to be baptized into his Church. How could God consign such people to damnation without giving them the chance to be saved? Surely he would give them that chance. But if they never heard the gospel in this life, when else could they hear and respond to it except in the next life?
There are a number of problems with this line of reasoning. Scripture is very clear in stating that this life is the only chance we get. Once we die, our fate is sealed: “It is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes judgment” (Heb. 9:27). There are no “second chances” after death. Consequently, God judges individuals based on their actions in this life. Since he is a just judge, he does not hold people accountable for what they did not and could not have known. Thus, those who do not hear the gospel in this life will be judged based on the knowledge they did have in this life. God gives his light to all people (John 1:9), and the universe itself gives evidence of God (Ps. 19:1-4), evidence which is sufficient to establish basic moral accountability (Rom. 1:18-21). For those who are ignorant by no fault of their own, God will not hold their ignorance against them; but it is wrong to assume that people have no light from God unless they hear an oral proclamation of the gospel.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/mormonisms-baptism-for-the-dead
They are the same at the local level. We got our asses handed to us when we challenged them for the local club leadership. All the career rinos vs not enough of us who give a damn. This won’t end well.
>>It’s possuble that her contract with Fox prohibits her from making an outright endorsement
So quit Fox.
Have you EVER heard a Fox anchor or ‘contributor’ come straight out and endorse anyone. Anyone? Ever?
They might show their bias, but they never say it outright.
My personal sense of the man, is that he’s too selfish to notice or care about the fact that he’s splitting the conservative vote just enough to give Florida to Mitt.
********************************
I’ve wondered about his selfishness, too.
I recall one debate when asked what they would bring or take away from the White House, Santorum said they would need to add onto to the White House, as to have enough room for all his kids. (where does THAT money come from?!)
Then tonight he got off on a tangent telling us about homeschooling in the White House. Also, when asked where his wife was, he said something like: doing what she does best.
Seems to me a man who touts family so much wouldn’t be dividing his attentions and short-changing this country and his family with his desire to be Mr.President. It seems to go against everything he claims he is for.
This country is in such a mess, we can’t afford anything less than a 100% of his attention, where does that leave a young and large family?
Maybe I’m strange but I think it is a bit cruel to drag young kids into the suffocating fish-bowl life with all the SS and people everywhere. No privacy and the freedoms they knew—gone, zapped! I’m sure it will add to his wife’s burden, too...that’s a LOT of stress!
It is their childhood for cripes sake! He can take another shot at being president, they don’t get another shot at childhood!
In a word, YES.
It’s high time that conservatives and like minded tea party patriots moved on from the Republican party. It should be obvious to all that the solutions to reining in big government lies outside the established political parties.
I’ve come to the conclusion that Gingrich is the only candidate who could beat Obama. Romney won’t quit, he has to be overcome. The only way to guarantee this outcome is for Rick Santorum to fold up his tent, no shame in it whatsoever, for the greater good. And Ron Paul should do likewise. There’s nothing to stop Gingrich from giving these two a role in his potential administration, and as some have said, Ron Paul is more right than wrong on economic issues — he is by no stretch of the imagination a mainstream conservative on foreign policy but he makes a reasonable point about the near-bankruptcy of modern America precluding yet another series of expensive Middle East misadventures. So commit to that and a reasonable fraction of the economic platform, and get the man and his supporters onside. An endorsement from Sarah Palin would be helpful.
It’s either that or roll the dice that America could survive four more years of Obama, and nobody wants to see that experiment.
I don’t think Mitt Romney is a terrible person but for whatever reason, he would be almost sure to lose to Obama and if he happened to win, he would cave in to Wall Street. Newt Gingrich may be flawed but not fatally so, and in fact his future is very much aligned with America’s future — as he overcomes, America has the chance to overcome.
I hope the Santorum and Paul supporters out there can read the tea leaves and see this inevitability — and get something rather than nothing. Because with Romney or Obama, that’s what they are likely to get — nothing or at least nothing much.
“Romney is not to blame and not responsible for anything: not his trustees, not his SuperPAC ads, not Bain’smisfortunes, only the good, not his off shore and oover seas investments - nothing!”
I did notice that, but nobody seems to have mentioned that too much. Tonight during the debate, I almost felt like I was listening to Obama speak. He seems to no nothing about any of his personal finances, and everything else is beyond his control. I laughed my ass off during the debate when Romney said he didn’t know anything about an anti-Newt ad, then a few minutes later Blitzer said something like...”we did the research, and at the end of the ad your voice came on and said “I’m Mitt Romney, and I approved this ad”....classic
‘GWB never saw a big spending bill he didn’t like and signed fast as he could. And the GOP establishment congress critters sent them up to him fast as they could.
That’s exactly what George Bush did and the reason is simple, GWB and his dad were nocons. They were never conservative. Necons are nothing more than democrats who left the democrat party becasue the demcrats had moved so far to the left.
Just look at the last time repubs. had control of congress,both houses, they spent money like drunken sailors. Why? Becaue the nocons like Karl Rove, GWB, John McCain, and others were in charge. They are liberals, not conservative. They ran the natioal debt up four trillion dollars.
Our party is entrenched with liberal necons and they, like the democrats they are, believe in big gov.. They believe conservatives, those who profess in God, and those who believe in limited government are a bunch of uneducated rednecks. They are snobs of the worst kind.
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.