Posted on 12/31/2007 8:35:07 PM PST by Spiff
“I guarantee you, if you were with me, you would have been as impressed and pleased to meet them as I was.”
No, I wouldn’t be. I’ve known too many mormons beyond the facade they put on. Be that as it may, you are acting solely on emotion, not scripture or reason. I meet a homosexual man through a mutual acquantance. He was a “nice” man and not a stereotype. I actually found, that other than politics, religon, and sexual orientation, I could find common ground with him on many things. However, when as was said and done, I still had to conclude, based upon scripture and reason, that he had no business having a child (he had adopted a boy along with his partner).
I’m certain that Tom Cruise may be a decent guy, but his beliefs are wacko.
Nice doesn’t cut it my friend.
“It would appear your claim that “true evangelical christian”s won’t support Romney are inaccurate.”
Bob Jones is a fundamentalist, not an evangelical. They are different. Others in this group basically sold out to expediency. Tancredo let Bay Buchanon influence him.
“But you haven’t received word from “on high” that you are to use any means necessary to “take out” Romney.”
Romney’s support here on FR is weak at best. My posts are aimed those, who care, that don’t realize how closely Romney is tied to mormonism. Plus, I really sick of all the closet mormons who post here and don’t openly declare their real perspective and agenda.
“I’m a born again, bible believing, tongue talker, Jesus Frick Christian and I would vote for Romney.”
Friend, you say you are a “tongue talker.” Hate to break it on you, but charismatics, although Christians, aren’t evangelicals either.
“They are like cockroaches and a cancer on the body politic. No different than the Ku Klux Klan of yesteryear or the Taliban of today.”
No, we are the quality assurance and quality control personnel for true Christianity. It is not a pleasant or enjoyable position, but a necessary one.
Fred Thompson was in the senate from 1994 through 2002.
Kathe Tuttman was appointed by Willard (aka Mitt) Romney, not Clinton.
Your refusal to address Willard's leftist judicial appointment is noted. And predictable.
Incredible. And you have the gall to label that candidate a liar with an obviously false statement like that?
Are you proud of being a religious bigot?
Please list for me the denominations and religions that you consider 'cults' or bastardizations of the 'one true faith'.
Catholicism? Judaism? Baptists? Please list alphabetically.
I’m sorry, am I supposed to supply some sort of honorific to you so you can “address” her?
Or am I supposed to find her address so you can write her a nasty e-mail or something?
Since I made the point first, if there was some prize for claiming the other person didn’t address the point, you wouldn’t win.
But there’s no prize for obtuseness.
This post is why I stay out of the religion threads, and work very hard to keep religious arguments out of the political discussions.
You can either have a rational discussion of the issues we face and how the candidates will address so issues, or you can spend your time pronouncing who is what kind or religion.
But you can’t do both. Telling people what you think about their religion pretty much makes it impossible to discuss anything.
The only use for national polls is to identify very general trends. What matters now is the position in the pre-Super Tuesday races. Based on those results, Super Tuesday will change from it’s current polling, and based on those results, everything after will change again. There is NO way to predict TX in March, because the field will be totally changed by then, yet TX is given weight in the National polls.
You could buy a dictionary. Or develop a sense of honesty.
Kathe Tuttman was appointed by Willard (aka Mitt) Romney, not Clinton. Your continued refusal to address Willard's leftist judicial appointment is noted. And still predictable.
See post #90. So you think true Christianity would somehow go away without your bigotry and Taliban tactics? Queen Mary undoubtedly used the same rationalization when she had heretics burnt at the stake. So did Charles I as he cut off the ears and imprisoned those who held unauthorized religious meetings.
And you wonder why the rest of the country doesn't want to take your advice on either matters of religion or politics.
Apparently, Charismatics and Fundamentalists don't make the cut either. See #82 and #84. Only Evangelicals are "the quality assurance and quality control personnel for true Christianity." You know, people such as Peter Popoff, the Bakkers, Oral and Richard Roberts, Ted Haggard . . .
You still fail to specify exactly what you want “addressed” regarding the appointment. You already seem to have identified her name, and that Romney appointed her, as well as mislabeling her based on one court case.
Meanwhile more recent information shows that a bigger problem in this case was the failure of the beuracracy, starting back in Weld’s time but being the prison system’s problem, to file timely paperwork in order to document the man’s failure to “behave”.
So while it’s easy now to fault the judge because she didn’t waive bail for his case, there wouldn’t have been a need to if he hadn’t been credited with “good behavior” when he in fact failed to behave well — all because they didn’t submit paperwork documenting his violence in the time frame required by law.
There is no information to suggest that this particular judge had any inclination to go easy on defendants. In fact, she was known as a strong prosecuter, and the liberals objected to her appointment because she did not meet their standards for “fairness”.
She screwed up, but it’s absurd given the lack of any prior indicators to suggest that Romney is culpable for her mistakes.
You might as well fault the driving test evaluator should be held responsible whenever a driver he passes ends up causing a fatal accident.
In a liberal state, with liberals controlling the confirmation process, Mitt Romney appointed law-and-order judges, regardless of politics, and mostly for positions where philosophy was of no consequence.
In this instance, a judge made a bad ruling, but one that the prosecuter didn’t recognise as being bad enough to appeal to the supreme court. Then the enforcement division failed to take prompt action to get the guy back when he ran away, because they also did not know what was going to happen.
In hindsight, a LOT of people wish they had done their jobs differently. I don’t know if that includes Romney, because frankly I don’t see any indication this judge was known for bad decision-making, or had any flags prior to being picked for the position.
The several people in the jail system who failed to do the paperwork, the prosecuter who didn’t appeal the decision, the judge who gave the guy bail, the retrievers who didn’t take the threat seriously enough when trying to get him back, all could blame themselves for this.
Except they would all be wrong, in that one very critical sense. The person who is responsible for the heinous acts is the person who COMMITTED the acts, not all the people along the way who could have, in hindsight, acted to keep him from having the change to commit those acts.
None of this of course has ANYTHING to do with the discussion, which if you go back to the beginning, was why the mitt-haters attacked him personally for this one judge, but seem to hold nobody else responsible in any way for judges THEY voted for who did bad things.
Since I don’t tend to hold 3rd parties responsible in such a severe fashion for actions of others, it doesn’t matter much to me who Thompson and McCain voted for. But those who profess to hold candidates accountable for actions taken by people they voted for or picked years after they do so are committing a hypocritical act if they only apply their “principles” against a candidate they hate.
Lol. I'm at a lost as to why Michael Jesus Archangel of Michigan, Republican isn't polling very well in Iowa.
“Are you proud of being a religious bigot?”
You answer first. Are you proud of being a fool?
“You can either have a rational discussion of the issues we face and how the candidates will address so issues, or you can spend your time pronouncing who is what kind or religion.”
As we have seen throughout the world, religious beliefs are fundamental to how many people will react and respond. They have affected Mike Huckabee’s decisions (like the paroles) and the same will be true of Mitt Romney. One must address what a person believes because they are foundational. So, issues of belief, although cause of much arguement, are most certainly germane to decisions regarding a POTUS. There is just no way around it.
“So you think true Christianity would somehow go away without your bigotry and Taliban tactics?”
Friend if I was using “Taliban” tactics, you would already be dead. So, the comparision is unwarranted and bigotry in itself.
When are you going to stop being a hate filled, anti-Christian bigot? Have you stopped molesting children yet?
You see, anyone can play that foolish game.
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.