Skip to comments.Mitt unplugged
Posted on 08/04/2007 2:34:44 PM PDT by mmanager
click here to read article
Good. I like him even more.
I completely disagree. Much more exploitable by the DNC are someone's 3 wives, insider lobbying history, ties with the mob and such. While it may seem quite easy to sit behind one's computer screen anonymously typing religious hit pieces on Mitt, the DNC will not get away with it. It will not be acceptable in mainstream America. If they try it, they will fail.
"If Mr. Romney goes on offensive on religious liberty, only the hard-core anti-Mormon bigots will deny him a fair shake and they will be insignificant." ~~ Michael Gaynor
Romney's Trump Card: Religious Liberty
Romney says it is not his job as a presidential candidate to educate people about his church. "I'm running for a secular position," he said in an interview. "I subscribe to what Abraham Lincoln called America's political religion. The Constitution and the rule of law are the highest promises I would make in taking the oath of office."
11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.Oh? How about worshiping Moloch?
‘’It’s one of the saddest threads I have ever seen’’
Cry me a river! You Mitt fans need to grow some skin. Ever follow a Hunter or FDT thread? This is Fred/Duncan light.
Everytime the ‘Mormon thing’ comes up you guys start this crap. Just tell Mitt to answer the questions. What is there to hide? Please tell.
Do you get to worship your Lord’s doctrine with out someone imposing on you?
...and do you try to impose your doctrine on others?
-—I agree. It is one of the saddest threads I’ve ever seen — full of religious bigotry and inexplicable hatred. These kinds of threads are an embarrassment to FR.-—
It’s very disappointing. No Viking kittens, no nothing.
Let me explain why Jan Michelson and others think the way that they do.
What people believe about God is critical to how things play out in the real world; i.e. politics.
For example, Hitler had a totally corrupt theology...it amounted to a belief in ancient superstitions and occultic garbage. That really mattered for millions of people, didn’t it?
Clinton, while he loved to carry around his huge Bible for purposes of photo ops, didn’t seem to pay much attention to anything written in it, did he? Did that matter politically?
My first warnings about Clinton were really when he gave his speech to the ‘92 Democratic Convention. Why did I go tell everybody I knew that Clinton was a danger to our Republic? What gave him away to me as a totally corrupt person? It was because I heard him, in that speech, totally twist and misquote scripture...the whole theme of it was ‘A NEW COVENENT’!! He was a shameless blasphemer and liar in my eyes henceforth. Was I right?
Yes, my friend, what people believe about God and the Bible is important to the political future of the world and our FRee Republic.
Or, he could be following the Lord's advice given in Matthew 7:6.
6 ¶ Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
Given the comments on this and other threads about Mormonism and Mormons, there's a lot of trampling and rending going on already. The truth of the matter is that no matter how truthfully he answers such questions, his answer will be spun by his opponents to make him and the church look as bad as possible. They will not accept anything he has to say on the matter. So, his incentive to answer is...what? Never mind the fact that the Constitution says that such a requirement is unacceptable. Sorry, he is not going to go along with your little game.
Looks like the bigots have found this thread and are doing their level best to muck it up with their lies, smears, and nasty religious intolerance. I really thought that FReepers were better than this, but the behavior of these jerks have made me realize that I was wrong. I’m not sure that I can continue donating to a website that condones this kind of religious intolerance and harassment. The stupid thing is that a great many members of the Republican Party and the conservative movement are LDS and these bigots are doing all they can to turn them off and drive them away. Their hate blinds them to who their friends and allies are and to the unintended consequences of their actions.
[ From the transcript: “ Again asking Romney to come back to show, Mickelson offered, “I hope we can do this so we can expend some quality time on here rather than the sound bytes.”
“No, I don’t like coming on the air and having you go after me and my church,” Romney testily responded.
“I’m not going after your church; I agree with your church!” Mickelson replied somewhat incredulously.
“I’m not running as a Mormon,” Romney came back, “and I get a little tired of coming on a show like yours and having it all about Mormon.”
“See, I don’t mind about it being all about that,” Mickelson explained.
“I do. I do,” Romney struck back.
The bickering went on, even as Romney was walking out the studio door and pointed out that he’s “not running to talk about Mormonism.” ]
This is the start of the implosion that we nasty “anti-Mormons” have been predicting, and been vilified for. Since Joseph Smith’s strange history is documented and relatively recent, Mitt either has to run as a non-Mormon and never mention religion (don’t see how you do that), or he has to run full bore Mormon and let all the warts show.
Since he will try and take a middle path (as politicians do) he will merely come across as a hypocrite. Twill be a nasty debacle.
Thereby guaranteeing that the Republican Party will forever will be in the minority. I hear grumblings of a third party movement within the conservatives of the LDS community. How long can this tolerate this bigotry?
To all LDS freepers and Lurkers. What should we call this new party?
How about the Patriot Party or the Liberty Party?
“Substitute Jews for Mormons and this lot would be permanently banned.”
That is false and a lie. No one is saying Mitt cannot run for president, or that Mormons are bad neighbors. What is being said is that if Mitt cannot explain his religious underpinnings, the foundation of his moral decision making, then he will likely be chewed up as President.
Lieberman was and is a viable candidate (even on the right who helped his election) BECAUSE he is a real Jew, and can explain his positions. One of the reasons John Kerry failed was because he COULDN’T explain his Catholicism in public. Hillary will be called to account because of her dishwater Methodist beliefs as well.
Truthfully, I think everyone who believes religion has NO place in politics should be banned, don’t you? Wouldn’t that be a de facto way of turning Free Republic into an atheist site? Or is that what you want?
“He only has to answer the question what his own views are.”
And I suppose Bishop Mitt’s own views are not in any way shape or form informed by his religious views??? What kind of sophistry is that?
He already answered people like you.
------> See post 52 <------
“Bigotry tries to keep truth safe in its hand with a grip that kills it.”
Then your side would be the side of bigots, for you are the ones calling for the bannings and censorship, not us.
Ok, so a politician who is a Charasimatics should explain speaking in tongues or prophesying?
What nonsense! It should be only what his personal views are and anything related to governing.
None of the televised political “debates” I recall were true debates between politicians. If she can’t ask him a question, then she can’t cut him off as he tries to answer. In a way, the same applies to Chavez, etc. I think President Bush handled Saddam Hussein well, and with decorum too.
“If he can’t handle rude, how’s he gonna handle ...the press corps in a press conference?”
That question applies to ALL Republican politicians. Democrats don’t have that problem as they only allow themselves to be interviewed by liberals Democrats.
The liberal press is always dangerous. They are usually dangerous through loaded questions, rather than overt rudeness. I’ve seen Newt Gingrich perform masterfully with a hostile press. He handled a gaggle by insisting on one question at a time without interruption. Then he dispatched each idiot, one at a time. I saw Bush go toe to toe with some jerk. As far as I can tell, Romney handles the press as well as anybody. Time will tell.
LDS freepers, how about the “Life, Liberty, and Happiness” party?
You compltely missed the point. Read posts 10, 11, 12, and 21 and tell me you think that’s OK. If they are we may as well invite the Stormfronters on board for their valuble contributions.
“Its very disappointing. No Viking kittens, no nothing.”
It must really disturb you that you can’t win a debate by just declaring the other side dead.
I think Hugo Chavez just pulled the same thing in Venezuela, banning the last independent TV station. Glad to see you have a mentor we can all recognize.
[What people believe about God is critical to how things play out in the real world; i.e. politics.
For example, Hitler had a totally corrupt theology...it amounted to a belief in ancient superstitions and occultic garbage. That really mattered for millions of people, didnt it?
Clinton, while he loved to carry around his huge Bible for purposes of photo ops, didnt seem to pay much attention to anything written in it, did he? Did that matter politically?]
Very well said, I will steal your writing and make it my own, royalty free :)
That post by NAL was a drag and paste of an Eternal Vigilance post from I think 2001. NAL just set a trap for you and others by being dishonest and not attributing honestly.
[Ok, so a politician who is a Charasimatics should explain speaking in tongues or prophesying?
What nonsense! It should be only what his personal views are and anything related to governing.]
Are you saying that a President who was likely to start speaking in tongues in the middle of a heated state of the Union, or in times of duress, shouldn’t be questioned in depth about that?
It’s all fair game, or it’s not a Free Republic.
“NAL just set a trap for you and others by being dishonest and not attributing honestly.”
Well, if being a liar is the way to make a point, then it truly is a sad day.
Then I need to thank EV. I thought that was a bit suspicious, but better to know who the deceivers are.
I think it is a bit deeper than that.
Rememeber this in Alma 11
21 And this Zeezrom began to question Amulek, saying: Will ye answer me a few questions which I shall ask you? Now Zeezrom was a man who was expert in the devices of the devil, that he might destroy that which was good; therefore, he said unto Amulek: Will ye answer the questions which I shall put unto you?
22 And Amulek said unto him: Yea, if it be according to the Spirit of the Lord, which is in me; for I shall say nothing which is contrary to the Spirit of the Lord. And Zeezrom said unto him: Behold, here are six onties of silver, and all these will I give thee if thou wilt deny the existence of a Supreme Being.
23 Now Amulek said: O thou child of hell, why tempt ye me? Knowest thou that the righteous yieldeth to no such temptations?
But than again one must keep in mind Mitt is not running for a eccleastic position but a secular office.
Except for the first sentence, post #60 was a copy of EV’s sentences from a much earlier post.
The anti-Mormon bigots here believe that because Mitt Romney is running for president, that it suddenly gives them unfettered license to attack Mormons and the LDS faith in every thread that mentions Mitt Romney. The anti-Mormon bigotry is thick in this thread which still resides in News/Activism. Even if it was in the Religion Forum, that would not excuse their hateful, intolerant, and ignorant behavior. No other Christian faith must bear the vile attacks borne by the Mormons in the Religion Forum here. Members of no other Christian faith must face the continual harassment that Mormons have to put up with daily on this site. It is appalling that this behavior is allowed to continue on Free Republic.
And you don’t do tomfoolery!
It would been no fun adding carrot tops name ...
sorry he did not think to add guess who?
Idiotic strawmen. Go buy yourself a clue.
Are you afraid of EV, Resty?
“You compltely missed the point”
Was 21 out of bounds? Maybe or maybe not. Here is the problem, if Mormonism is, as many of us believe based on a documented false prophet, then the entire religion is subject to ridicule, as would be a President of that faith (just as a believer in Jihad, or Santeria, or Kabbalah be subject to ridicule).
So we can certainly debate the etiquette of what is going on on this thread, but it is simple a foreshadowing of what is about to occur in the primaries, and then be magnified a hundred fold should Mitt get the nomination.
Mitt’s candidacy is a circular firing squad.
Yep, it’s EV’s post. I emailed it to others too.
Tell me again, how is it a trap? Why is this post uncomfortable?
Post of the thread.......!!
Why should I be afraid truth is truth an nothing will destroy it!
Not even you big boy!
I have been a Mormon all of my life and I've never seen/heard a Mormon "speak in tongues".
Additionally, many other Christian faiths believe in "speaking in tongues".
Your vile attacks grow even more vile. If you are representative of the Christian faith, I'm not sure why we Mormons are so quick to defend our association with the term Christian.
Most Mormons in the United States are Republican and quite conservative. You continued attacks against a significant portion of the conservative movement really have no place on this conservative POLITICAL forum. (See that this thread happens to be in the News/Activism forum.) I'm sure that there are a great many anti-Mormon forums where your behavior would be welcome and somewhat appropriate.
“Idiotic strawmen. Go buy yourself a clue”
Alright, I will buy a clue. Are you the strawman I should buy it from?
And by the way, claiming an argument is a strawman argument is not the same as SHOWING it to be so. I remain unimpressed, you present no proof, just innuendo.
This is the giant cow pie that the anti-Mormon bigots always hide behind when called on their constant bigotry in the Mitt Romney threads. And its stupid. "Oh, we're just showing how most Americans are going to react to a Mormon running for President and if Romney can't take the heat...blah, blah, blah..." No one believes it. It is an obvious and lame excuse for your hateful religious intolerance. No other Presidential candidate, or his supporters, has to bear such attacks on their religious faith. There really is no room for this kind of religious intolerance and vile behavior in this conservative political forum or in this country in this day and age. You're a throw back to the times when Mormon women were raped, children were beaten, and the men were killed by mobs.
If Mitt Romney were a snake handling fundamentalists, I wouldn't vote for him because I know how off the wall that sect is because of first-hand witnessing their foolishness. But I wouldn't yet go so far as to say they're not a Christian sect. Now, with a few months of exchanging with Momronism Apologuists at FR, I wouldn't vote for a devout Mormon for President. They insist on being called a Christian se- ... no, they insist they are THE ONLY TRUE Christian sect. Mormonism calims Mormon baptism either in person or by proxy is the only way to complete one's Salvation. That makes him disqualified for being a devout Mormon of such specious heretical claims.
[Yep, its EVs post. I emailed it to others too.
Tell me again, how is it a trap? Why is this post uncomfortable?]
The post isn’t uncomfortable, it is something called PLAGIARISM and MISATTRIBUTION that are the problem.
Especially when someone is quoting someone they oppose out of context.
But if it is fair for you to use this tactic, then you must believe it is fair for everyone else as well. Think now, be careful what you wish for.
Yep, if I believed in your logic, then I guess all of those speaking in tongue Christians should not be president.
I guess that leaves, Catholics, ah, wait maybe not.
Unitarians? Ahh, no.
Pentecostals? No, see above.
Southern Bapists? No they were created on the slavery issue.
Who is left? Ah yeah, Liberal Christians!
Only a Liberal Christian can be president because they are grounded!
I gave the link, in the other thread and I emailed to other parties. I have no reason behind it. In fact, I believe much of what it says!
*reason to hide
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.