Skip to comments.We will not waste our limited resources on FR in support for a liberal progressive LIAR
Posted on 04/13/2012 12:13:14 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
A reminder for those who are not receiving the message:
Romney is a pathological compulsive liar. Lie after lie papered over with more lies. Doesnt even flinch when caught in bald faced lies, simply tells another big whopper to cover up or dodge the issue. Funny thing, the man actually seems to believe his own latest lies and simply ignores the glaring record of his past actions/lies. And you have true blue establishment elite RINO Republicans like Karl Rove enabling and backing up his lies. Their motivation is simply to hang on to power (and riches) any way they can.
Ive stated many times since Romney started running for the presidency way back when that Id never vote for him and I will not. He cannot lie his way out of his decades long record of support for abortion, Roe v Wade, planned parenthood, gay rights, gun control, global warming, amnesty, liberal judges, big government, compulsory or socialized health care (RomneyCommieCare), mandates, Keynesian economics, support and approval of TARP, bailouts, stimulus packages, i.e, every damn liberal progressive issue that comes down the pike.
Cmon. These are the reasons the tea party sprang up and the reasons he and Rove loathe the tea party and our tea party conservative candidates. Romney famously expressed his loathing for Reagan-Bush conservatism several years ago when he was trying to run to the left of Ted Kennedy and now hes cloaking himself in Reagan conservatism, knowing full well that its a lie, but he knows its the only way he can possibly win, er buy the Republican nomination.
Screw Romney!! I absolutely will not support or vote for a proven compulsive liar with a known record of abortion and big government socialism, liberal appointments, etc. He still lies about RomneyCommieCare today. Calls it a conservative solution. Get real!!
Listen to what Ronald Reagan had to say about the elites pushing socialism on America via compulsory health insurance:
Ronald Reagan speaks out against RomneyCommieCare
There will be no campaign for this Massachusetts liberal liar on FR!!
Damn the libs and RINOS, full steam ahead!!
But no matter what happens we must turn out in November to vote IN as many conservatives and vote OUT as many rats as possible at all levels of government. If we don't have a conservative at the top of the ticket we must turn out anyway and vote straight conservative DOWN ticket!! Just think of it an off cycle election and pour on the TEA!! It'll be doubly important that we control both houses of congress and as many statehouses as possible.
Restore the 10th amendment!! Impeach the leftist president whoever he may be!! Restore Liberty!! Rebellion comes from the bottom up!!
WOO HOO!! I CAN SEE NOVEMBER FROM MY HOUSE!!
No Bama!! No Romney!! Go tea party rebellion!!
I'm not one of them. I don't care if I am the ONLY person in the whole damn country who won't knuckle under and vote for Romney, I WON'T ever cast a vote for the slime.
He represents the enemy. I won't be voting him into power with my vote.
Wow, it almost appears that your dislike list is so big you probably couldn't find anyone you would like to vote for.
Maybe you should write in your own name.
I would have voted for anyone that ran except for Paul and Romney.
And it’s a tempting suggestion, but I think not.
I stand corrected. I must have missed one of your quotes, and assigned that line to you. Please accept my apology.
Since you and I are on the same page, I believe that this is the time to oppose the GOP-E and their endorsements of the most liberal Candidate in the field.
The GOP-E has learned NOTHING from their failures of the past.
It will be time to take over the RNC if the Tampa Convention does not produce a Nominee that gives America a clear, and distinct choice between the present policy of “both” political parties: DEBT, DECLINE, and DIVISION, and a National policy of cutting Federal spending to be below the average of the previous 2 years total Federal income.
It is disappointing to read that Newt is making more remarks about supporting Romney than he is making about what the RNC needs to do to provide America with a distinct choice in November.
If Newt thinks that Romney will choose him for Veep, that may explain his change of position.
However, The Romney Road to Ruin is so similar to that Wrong Track of Obama, that even the “clothes pin voter” will not be swayed by Newt being on the ballot.
Time for Newt to make his pitch to reform the RNC by challenging the GOP-E now. What odds do you give for that happening?
“You are an insensitive and sanctimonious jerk!
Do not waste my time with your self-righteous drivel!”
I’m sorry. I assumed you were a conservative who was conversant with issues and ideas - possibly even interested in truth. My mistake.
Please continue in rearranging your presuppositions and assumptions.
I’ll defend life from the likes of your candidate.
To the contrary, I think it is you who hasn't read the quote you offered very closely. That quote wasn't about success, or some strategic plan for eventual victory by sticking to your principles. It was simply about feeling good about yourself because you insisted on 100% purity. When my kids are in a country with a 6-3 liberal majority on the Supreme Court, with electoral demographics permanently skewed because of liberal immigration policies, me self-congratulations won't be of any solace to them.
You have children? Then the best thing you can teach them is to be true to your principles. Even your political principles. Do not compromise your values. Hold fast to your fundamental truths.
I don't see voting for an imperfect candidate as a compromise of values, or a failure to hold to fundamental truths. You can vote for a less than perfect candidate on the basis that he is better than the alternative, and also be vocal about opposing anything he does, or attempts to do, that is inconsistent with your principles.
In essence, you are voting for that person, warts and all, because that's the nature of the two-party system. But you are still free to speak out and oppose him/her to the extent they push policies you do not support.
I also am in agreement with those who believe that internal party pressures and the need for the candidate to retain support will compel any Republican nominee to be more conservative than the Democratic alternative once elected.
Look us in the eye,
And never, EVER lie!
If you mean what you say,
Then say what you mean!
Stand and deliver
What you plan to do,
In case you havent noticed,
No one likes you.
Our line in the sand,
Puts your Romney Road to Ruin
Alongside Obamas Wrong Track.
So stop your damned Smiley-Face,
And attack, Attack, ATTACK!
We will oppose you in Tampa,
For what you lack,
We want America to be back
On the Constitution Track.
Do you have it in you?
I doubt that you do,
You see a Pinko future,
And we see Red, White and Blue.
Who says everything is hopeless? (I don't)
Sure, it appears "hopeless" for the conservative humanists among us who like to trust in political solutions & political "saviors." That's not where I place my trust.
One man -- even Romney or Obama -- doesn't make or break a country alone. God is sovereign; and the corruption extends well beyond Romney & Obama as reasons God could economically judge this country.
I would say that the reality that we have so many conservatives -- and so many Christians -- willing to vote for a guy who claims he is a "god in embryo" and will one day rival THE God for worship, reception of prayer, adoration, creative right of souls, etc...would simply be another reason for God to IMMEDIATELY judge this nation beyond mere economics. (For some reason, God hasn't appreciated idolatry -- especially coming from people claiming to be His people).
Lets say that you know of a boss who is abusing employees- is brutal, cruel, hates his employees, and does whatever he can to make life miserable for them- and lets say that life has becoem unbearable under that boss- now lets say a person is running to replace that boss- and is the only choice weve got to replace that boss but hwo isnt everythign we had hooped for- woudl it be better to keep the abusive cruekl boss inplace? Or go with htel esser of two evils for the sake of easing some of he cruelty agaisnt the abused employees?
Let's say THE Anti-Christ was a Dem & he was in office. Let's say an (R) guy came along -- said he was Hitler reincarnated -- and a vote for him would get THE anti-Christ out of office...Would you vote for the "lesser of two evils?" Would you promote evil and endorse evil? Do you vote for one socialist to rid yourself of another? Are you not "evil" and a socialist supporter either way?
You see, your formula -- and that of many FREEPERs & other conservatives -- trains the next two generations to vote for a guy to the left of Obama down the line...just because the there will always be a worse (d) candidate!
I;m sorry, but I don;t understand how leavign someone so brutally and blatantly antiamerican in office is better than gettign someone in who at least does have soem conservative values- obama has none- zero- zip- nada- Hell, he isn;t even proud of this country!
It's called having a choice in this country. If we want -- for the rest of our nation's history -- to be choosing between two socialists...choosing between two pro-aborts...choosing between two liberals...then go ahead with your scheme.
Instead, if you want to be part of the rebellion and tell the RINO GoP-e that "No, there aren't enough pro-abort, big govt. socialist-liberal voters in this country to support two mainstream pro-abort, big-govt. socialist-liberal candidates," then vote third party.
Otherwise, once the pro-abort, Big Govt Socialist-liberal "Waterloo" is crossed, there's no turning back. THIS IS the "make or break" time...At some point, "tough love" needs to show some boundaries instead of just letting the GoP-e take you for granted and walk all over you...belieiving you'll always cave because of your cowardice motivated by fear.
Stand up and take it like a pre-born baby. Instead of being the milquetoast men we see around us, stand up and at least be like a pre-born baby! Half of them die -- most due to the liberal agenda of abortion & abortion drugs; you don't hear them whining about "survival," do you???
Read up on a couple of kids named Patti Davis and Ron Reagan. Their father loved them and supported them no matter what path they followed.
Well said, Chuck.
But, it’s not all group think (yet?) because, as I check to see whose accounts are still viable, it appears he’s not ZOTting everyone who’s unwilling to fall on their sword and unleash the Marxist by gift-wrapping a second term for him.
Posts like this make most conservatives cringe and give liberals so much to play with
It`s just that I have no confidence that he will appoint Conservative Judges. I have more confidence that he will appoint a moderate Republican, to me that is of no value.
Really I am mostly concerned about Pro Life/family values!
I would like to see Romney and Obama state their positions publicly, perhaps in a forum like Rick Warren held with McCain/Obama.
But I do not want it to be with Rick Warren, have little respect for him, perhaps Focus on the Family James Dobson, talking tough questions, not like what phony Warren had....that`s my idea.
[[That argument was blasted about in 2008 and many of us knuckled under the threat. We’re not going to be insane and do the same thing in 2012 we did in 2008 and expect different results.]]
you most certainly ARE doign hte same htign regardless of how you try to convince yourself otherwise
I aasked you to tryo to be civil- but it’s apaprent that you don’;t care to be-
[[We do not care what you scare-mongering Romneybot RINOs think anymore. ]]
woops- my mistaske, I thoguht I was conversing with an adult- I apologize for the mistake
tsk tsk, shame on you.
Yes, he loved his children. No, he did not push the homosexual agenda.
[[One man — even Romney or Obama — doesn’t make or break a country alone.]]
One man IS breakign htis country- and if we think the first 4 years was bad, we ‘aint seen nothin yet’ IF he gets back i n again- My point right along has been that obama has made it very clear his itnentions IF he gets reelected like he htinks he is entitled to be-
God is soveriegn yes, that s true- but as The Soveriegn God, He has also empoered we His creation to work alongside Him- Not that He has to use us, but He has said it is His desire that we deo so-
I agree with you Romeny is a bad choice— I hate that he’s our only choice- I hate that the GOP has rammed him through, I hate that the GOP has slid so far left that they are hardly recognizable from the left anymore- However- they are our only chocie right now IF we want obama, who is aq much more evil person, out of office
[[and the corruption extends well beyond Romney & Obama as reasons God could economically judge this country. ]]
I agree- and if it comes to obama being in 4 more years per God’s order- then we’ll simply have to deal with it and take our lunmps, aqnd watch as our rights are eropded away- but I don’;t intend to just throw my hands in the air before the election and let obama walk away with the election uncontested regardless of how much I’d like another gop candidate
[[I would say that the reality that we have so many conservatives — and so many Christians — willing to vote for a guy who claims he is a “god in embryo” and will one day rival THE God for worship, reception of prayer, adoration, creative right of souls, etc...would simply be another reason for God to IMMEDIATELY judge this nation beyond mere economics.]]
and what do you think abotu conseratives who do nothign to kick a purely evil person out of hte white house- Our votes are NOT in support of romeny- they are votes agaisnt obama
[[Let’s say THE Anti-Christ was a Dem & he was in office. Let’s say an (R) guy came along — said he was Hitler reincarnated — and a vote for him would get THE anti-Christ out of office...Would you vote for the “lesser of two evils?” Would you promote evil and endorse evil?]]
first of all- this is an unreasonable analogy- Are you comparing romeny to hitler? (I’ll allow hte comparison of obama to antiChrist- as his actiosn ARE very blatantly antiChristian)
[[Would you promote evil and endorse evil?]]
Woudl you espouse leavign someone as evil as obama in office to continue abusing the right?
[[Do you vote for one socialist to rid yourself of another?]]
IF the only choice I have is between 2 swocialists, and it is clear that the one in office is the MUCH worse choice- then yes- I would vote to have him thrown out of office- Especially when we KNOW he hasn’t ANY right leanign convictions at all an d is actively tryign to destroy this nation of ours in his no holds barred attack on religion, the court system and our constitution
[[You see, your formula — and that of many FREEPERs & other conservatives — trains the next two generations to vote for a guy to the left of Obama down the line...just because the there will always be a worse (d) candidate! ]]
I’m sorry- but that is simply illogical- and you’re beginnign to reach too far in order to try to make your case- noone is espousing voting for the worst of the bunch- I’ve repeteadly stated over and over again it pains me that our only choice is romney- I hate the fact that he was chosen- and we who see another 4 years of obama as too dangerous for htis coutnry given his radical far left agenda would infact teach future generations that we need Godly right of center candidates- however, we also understand that unfortunately, we are not always goi9gn to be given the chocie to choose someone who holds all our values, but that it’s better to vote out someone as blatantly antiamerican as obama than it is to abstain from voting because a candidate doesn’;t hold every last ideal we aspire to
[[Stand up and take it like a pre-born baby.]]
now see- That saddens me- I again mistakenly htought I was havign a covnersation with an adult- either step up your rhettoric to adult levels, or don;t bother responding anymore, because I’ll simply ignore your posts- tyou may feel passionately abotu what you beleive, and that’s fine, but there’;s no need to resort to playground insults in order to get your5 points across- thanjks
[[In a way I seem to be caught between two worlds.Internally forced to support someone who really does not share my values to the degree that i would like but still far better than the other choice.]]
Apparently we’re not allowed to have such a view here on FR- accordign to some in htis thread
[[I understand you have made the compromise so much you are sick of it. For me I really can’t go there. I’m hopeful that we light a fire under all rino butts and slowly but surely get rid of them. But the stakes are so high I am willing to do it incrementally,a little at a time just like the marxists are doing to us. For me “not to” oppose them every chance I get is not an option.]]
You just said in two sentences what has taken me loads of posts to uneloquently state-
The situation reminds me of this old rocky song. We dont have good choices and to many men have died for this country to let the marxist muslim usurper continue to destroy our nation and humiliate us.
I choose ABO not as a Romney supporter but as a man who wants our republic to have at least a small chance of survival. Yes its that bad folks, we are on the cusp of full blown communism. Khrushchev was correct. You all do what you gotta do and if it makes you feel more “holy and pure” to not get this man out of office than so be it. I will still be fighting with you all when armed insurrection breaks out. Till the end.
However, the current "purist climate" would have killed Reagan's nomination if the same standards were applied today.
No, he did not push the homosexual agenda.
Look up the Briggs Initiative. I also advise you to read "An American Life" by Ronald Reagan and learn that if we had treated him the way we treat our candidates now that he'd have given up politics early.
One, Proposition 5, would be the nations toughest anti-smoking law. The other, Proposition 6, would provide for firing teachers who advocate homosexuality.
The measures are similar in that they would mean more government (in fact, the author of Prop. 6, State Sen. John Briggs, said in a recent interview government is the whole ball game). The two measures also present enforcement problemsProp. 5 because it would be difficult to enforce except at great cost and Prop. 6 because it could be over-enforced.
Proposition 5 sets out to protect non-smokers from the fumes of those hooked on the weed. It would prohibit smoking in nearly all public places, but the hitch is that it defines private places of employment as public. Shades of newspeak in Orwells 1984. Restaurants would be required to have smoking and non-smoking sections. And, as with offices and factories, the owners would have to foot the cost for the No Smoking signs. Ironically, the measure would permit smoking in public auditoriums when a rock concert, roller derby or professional boxing or wrestling match is the attraction, but not if the fare is an amateur event or a jazz concert.
Short of recruiting an army of smoking police, the measure seems unenforceable. Smoking is already prohibited in many public buildings, but this measure goes well beyond, to restrict both personal liberties and private property rights. That reasonable smokers and non-smokers can use a little common courtesy in working out their differences seems not to have occurred to the proponents of Prop. 5. If it passes, it wont be the first time a false assumption found its way into law and made government grow.
Proposition 6 rests on several assumptions. The two most frequently mentioned are that teachers can influence the sexual orientation of children because they are role models and that homosexual teachers will molest their pupils. Briggs told an interviewer the other [day] that Everybody knows that homosexuals are child molesters. Not all of them, but most of them. I mean, thats why they are in the teaching profession.
Although statistics are not kept nationally, informed observers usually put the percentage of child molesting cases by homosexuals at well under 10 percent. The overwhelming majority of such cases are committed by heterosexual males against young females.
As to the role model argument, a woman writing to the editor a Southern California newspaper said it all: If teachers had such power over children I would have been a nun years ago.
Whatever else it is, homosexuality is not a contagious disease like the measles. Prevailing scientific opinion is that an individuals sexuality is determined at a very early age and that a childs teachers do not really influence this.
Had Proposition 6 been confined to prohibiting the advocacy in the classroom of a homosexual lifestyle (and sex-before-marriage, swinging. and adultery, for that matter) it would no doubt enjoy much wider support than it does. Instead, the measure calls for firing teachers who engage in homosexual activity (something already covered by California law) or homosexual conduct, which it defines as advocating, soliciting, imposing, encouraging or promoting private or public homosexual activity . . . It is that passageand especially the word advocacy that has generated heavy bipartisan opposition to the measure.
Since the measure does not restrict itself to the classroom, every aspect of a teachers personal life could presumably come under suspicion. What constitutes advocacy of homosexuality? Would public opposition to Prop. 6 by a teachershould it passbe considered advocacy?
The measure would require formal school board hearings if a teacher is accused. Under the present law an informal investigation can be conducted to determine the merits of charges against a teacher. Though the formal hearings under Prop. 6 would be private (unless the accused wanted them public), how do you keep such charges private in a small community? And how do you prevent an overwrought child with bad grades from seeking revenge by accusing the teacher of a homosexual advance or advocacy? Under Prop. 6, you dont.
Will California rewrite that old line to read, As California goes, so goes the nation? Here is one heterosexual non-smoker who, where Props. 5 and 6 are concerned, hopes the answer is no. If blue jeans and drive-in churches werent enough to convince you that California sets trends, Proposition 13 should have left no doubt. Californians arent stopping with the tax revolt, however. The Golden States November ballot contains two controversial measures which, pass or fail, have the potential for setting more national trends.
Conservatives who vote for liberals don’t know how to cringe but they sure can make believe. And liberals will have enough to play with how easily conservatives can fold like a cheap suitcase.
Yer wasting your time trying to convince me of your viewpoint, I made that mistake in 2008, I will NEVER make that mistake again.
If Romney is the nominee, I will work my arse off to get as many people to vote Conservative as possible, and either write-in someone else for the top spot or go 3rd party.
You can take that to the bank. This is war, not politics.
If so, we were screwed from the beginning.
That’s some pretty fancy copy and paste, but it does nothing to support your smear job claiming that Reagan promoted the homosexual agenda.
[[However, the current “purist climate” would have killed Reagan’s nomination if the same standards were applied today.]]
Which is exactly what I’m not understandign in this thread- It appears there are folsk statign that voting romeny in order to defeat a much worse candidate means disobeying God, violating our consciences, falling in the sewer, being spineless... (insert insult of choice here) but apparently there is some arbitrary cutoff point for compromise that I’m not aware of- for isntance it might be ok apparently to vote for someoen who supports gay rights but doesn’t support gun control- or perghaps gay rights and gun control are ok, but hte cutoff point for compromising coems at pro choice support? Or perghaps the purists think that lonly a candidate with ALL them oral values hat hey personally subscribe to qwill do- if one isn’;t found, then oh well- America ‘gets what she deserves’ and it’s apaprently ok to leave an extremist marxist in office.
In one breath, soem advocate stayign away from one candidate, but then in nexct breath’ suggesting htat everyoen hsould just vote straight party ticket line regdless if oyu know hwere the candidates stand apaprently- Makes no sense- then we’re told it’s our God given duty to ‘resist tyranny’ Yet apaprently we’re to ignore the current tyranny (evidently because ameirca is ‘gettign what she deserves’) and not vote and leave the much more dangerous current tyranical leader in office another 4 years- (doesn’t sound liek ‘resisting tyranny’ to me- Soundsw morel iek capitulating to, succumbing to- the much worse tyranny that currently holds the office- but oh well- symanticsw always seem to get i nthe way of a good argument I guess)
Apaprently allowing Obama to appoint another liberal to the supreme court sits ok with those who think america is ‘gettign what she deserves’ and we who worry about such things are ‘just being alarmist and shoudl just shut up and toe the extreme purist teaparty line’
As Mark i na few posts up declares, We indeed ARE o nthe cusp of a fukll blown marxist society- The view hereo n Fr seems to be so extreme as to suggest that Romeny too wants full blown marxism- it’s absolutely mind boggling to me that soem would even sugest such a thing- liek Mark says, Yes, Romeny is a ‘small chance’, but liek it or not *(and most don’t liek it and riughtfully so) it’;s the ONLY chocie we have- either we elect him, or keep an over hte top extremist marxist MUSLIM Sympathisor in office another 4 years
Slim chance is better than NO chance=-
You got that right.
If Willard gets the nomination, I'll be curious to see if Newt throws his support behind the nominee and, if so, what happens here.
Given how easily the "NO personal attacks" thing is ignored--FU, FU2, idiot, wuss, etc.--why bother rewording?
No, at best, Willard is the DNC's #3 pick.
Because come November, rather than Willard, any 'RAT would be ELATED to hear we're voting for ANY write-in or third-party conservative candidate because that splits the anti-Obama vote.
I only wish we could convince any of them to cast write-in votes for Hillary. (Of course, the mere mention would make me out to be a racist bigot in their minds.)
Oh brother...and I am no wuss. 4’ 11” petite gal who survived being beaten to a pulp by a 6’ 4” man. Yeah, let’s talk about wussies. And I am well acquainted with incivility, evil, and true wussies (like big guys who pummel women), so don’t talk to me about your version of evil. Like you know it. I’ve looked it square in the face. And that’s why when I hear people use the term loosely, it’s aggravating.
OMG, the hyperbole is enough to wear me down.
Yeah, I’m sure they’ve prepared the ovens and Zyklon B
as we speak.
While I don’t want to see our country go up in “flames” via
the horrendous debt or destruction of our freedoms, my hope is in
Amen and amen, brother.
so dont talk to me about your version of evil
I don't have a 'version'. Evil is Evil. It is what it is. It comes in all forms, not just yours.
Just because mitt didn't assault you, he isn't evil? Tell that to the defenseless babies that were slaughter for $50 a clip under his ROMNEYCARE. Sad you don't think they don't need a voice, also, because it wasn't you.
He's a backstabber and a LIAR that can KILL someone's spirit and reputation. Not every injury is visible. As you know, through your experience.
That said, what was done to you by his knowledge that he could overpower he deliberately assaulted you. He wouldn't try that with someone he had doubts about, lest wussy got hurt. He is a little man. Thank God but by the grace of God you survived.
#1...there's a HUGE gap in power ... I mean HUGE ... 'tween a member of Congress & the White House...
What the Mormon "prophet" may find not worth the risk of attempted manipulation @ the Congressional level can in no way be compared to temptations extant re: the White House...especially when we're talking about informal behind-the-scenes "favors."
While I agree with and appreciate many of your anti-mormon rants, saying Mitt Romney will just be a puppet of Mormon leaders is ludicrous...The argument that Romney will somehow be an arm of the mormon church is a non-starter and is an argument running from your emotional disgust with LDS rather than a logical construct.
#2...You phrase things correctly when I view Romney as a potential "puppet & arm" of the Mormon church. IOW...past performance as gov will in no way be comparable to future performance as POTUS. Why? Because in neither case does Romney have to assume any initiative to do things on the sly for the Mormon church.
I'm frankly not all that concerned what Romney might initiate on his own...
#3...Since you're interested in a "logical construct..." hey, so am I. Otherwise, I wouldn't have spent some time constructing the chart below.
In this chart
-- which were not dredged up from ancient Mormon history (except for the first three statements, ALL of them were made by Lds leaders between the 1960s and 1980s...and even the third statement was being reprinted in official publications ranging from 1984 in a book -->July 7, 2011 in the Lds church-owned Deseret News!)...
...we find logical overreaches of Mormon leaders into the political sphere...
Now...you couple these kind of precedent-type statements from the recent past from Mormon leaders...
...and mix them with a present or future Mormon "prophet" who can't resist extending his arm too far...
So...since you challenged me on this...I expect a logical construct from YOU as to why you think these statements from this chart would suddenly be non-applicable?
I mean if they were applicable in less tempting political arenas when the Mormons have not had the White House, why is your gut impulse to move away from Lds leaders using these principles when the power is a phone call or visit away???
|Lds Leader||Chronological 'Prophet' or Fundamental # (or Other Title)||Overlap Areas: Could the President of the U.S. become a 'puppet' to an Lds 'Prophet?' (The Lds Prophets -- in their own words)|
|John Taylor||Lds 'Prophet' #3||The Almighty has established this kingdom with order and laws and every thing pertaining thereto [so] that when the nations shall be convulsed, we may stand forth as saviours and finally redeem a ruined world, not only in a religious but in a political point of view. (Journal of Discourses, vol. 9, p. 342, April 13, 1862)|
|Orson Hyde||President of the Lds Quorum of the 12 Apostles for 28 years (1847-1875)||What the world calls Mormonism will rule every nation...God has decreed it, and his own right arm will accomplish it. This will make the heathen rage. (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 53)|
|Heber J. Grant||Lds 'Prophet' #7||"Elder Marion G. Romney recalled the counsel of President Heber J. Grant: 'My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it.' Then with a twinkle in his eye, he said, 'But you don't need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray'" (in Conference Report, Oct. 1960, p. 78)." Cited in Official Lds publication Search the Commandments: Melchizedek Priesthood Personal Study Guide, p. 209 (1984)|
|Harold B. Lee||Lds 'Prophet' #11||...President Harold B. Lee said: 'We must learn to give heed to the words and commandments that the Lord shall give through his prophet, '...as if from mine own mouth...(D&C 21:4-5)...You may not like what comes from the authority of the Church. It may contradict your political views. It may contradict your social views. It may interfere with some of your social life. But if you listen to these things, as if from the mouth of the Lord himself..." Cited in official Lds publication Remember Me: Relief Society Personal Study Guide I, p. 27 (1989)|
|Spencer Kimball||Lds 'Prophet' #12||"President Spencer W. Kimball said: '...We deal with many things which are thought to be not so spiritual; but all things are spiritual with the Lord, and he expects us to listen, and to obey..." (In Conference Report, Apr. 1977, p. 8; or Ensign, May 1977, p. 7) Cited in official Lds publication Come, Follow Me: Melchizedek Priesthood Personal Study Guide 1983, p.12 (1983)|
|What about Marion G. Romney, cousin to Mitt's father?||Who was he in Lds hierarchy? (Title: 'President' - Top 3 of church as 2nd counselor to both #11 & #12 Lds 'prophets')||"Elder Neal A. Maxwell has said: 'Following the living prophets is something that must be done in all seasons and circumstances. We must be like President Marion G. Romney, who humbly said, '..I have never hesitated to follow the counsel of the Authorities of the Church even though it crossed my social, professional, and political life' (Conference Report, April 1941, p. 123). There are, or will be moments when prophetic declarations collide with our pride or our seeming personal interests...Do I believe in the living prophet even when he speaks on matters affecting me and my specialty directly? Or do I stop sustaining the prophet when his words fall in my territory? if the latter, the prophet is without honor in our country! (Things As They Really Are, p. 73). Cited in official Lds publication, Search the Commandments: Melchizedek Priesthood Personal Study Guide, pp. 275-276 (1984)|
|Ezra Taft Benson||Lds 'Prophet' #13||Benson speech given 2/26/80 @BYU. Summary: remember, if there is ever a conflict between earthly knowledge and the words of the prophet, you stand with the prophet (See excerpts re: 3 of 14 'fundamentals' below) Source: Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet|
|Benson (cont'd)||Fundamental #5||5. The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time. (My Q: Ya hear that Mitt Romney?)|
|Benson (cont'd)||Fundamental #9||9. The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual. (My Q: Still listening, Mitt?)|
|Benson (cont'd)||Fundamental #10||10. The prophet may advise on civic matters. (My Q: What say ye Mitt?)|
|B.H. Roberts||LDS Historian and Seventy. Note: Roberts was an elected Democratic Congressman from Utah in 1898 -- but was NEVER seated by Congress because of grass roots uproar vs. Roberts, who took a THIRD simultaneous wife in the early 1890s. Grass roots America collected 7 MILLION signatures on 28 banners and presented them to Congress...in pre-mass media 1800s!||[T]he kingdom of God... is to be a POLITICAL INSTITUTION THAT SHALL HOLD SWAY OVER ALL THE EARTH; TO WHICH ALL OTHER GOVERNMENTS WILL BE SUBORDINATE AND BY WHICH THEY WILL BE DOMINATED. The Rise and Fall of Nauvoo, 1900, p. 180|
|Mitt Romney as POTUS???||Aside from above prophetic impositions, why would Mitt not only honor what these 'prophets' have spoken, but what a future Lds 'prophet' may tell him to do?||The Law of Consecration Oath Mitt Romney has sworn in the Mormon temple (done before marriage/sealing in temple): "You and each of you covenant and promise before God, angels, and these witnesses at this altar, that you do accept the law of consecration as contained in this, the book of Doctrine and Covenants [he displays the book], in that you do consecrate yourselves, your time, talents, and EVERYTHING with which the Lord has blessed you, or WITH which he MAY bless you, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for the building up of the kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion." Source: What is an LDS Church/Mormon temple marriage/sealing? [Q: Please define 'Zion': The LDS PR Web site (lds.org) defines its primary meaning: "membership in the [LDS] church."]|
I'm not one given to wild conspiracy theories, but have you been watching Obama's moves these last three years? During the Bush years, most people would have pronounced you totally delusional and ready for a straight jacket, if you'd predicted everything Obama's done since being president.
I, for one, believe what's gone on behind closed doors to be much worse than anything we've seen reported. The man is a monster with no equal in US history. You have to look to the histories of other countries to find any parallel to this guy.
“However, as bad as McCain was, I would give damn near anything to trade the last three years under the socialist Obama for a McCain presidency.”
Then you’re nuts. You can bet that having McCain in the White House would have neutered the few conservatives in the GOP to the point of Obamacare and amnesty being passed by McCain and labeled ‘compassionate MAVERICK conservatism.’ Having Obama has, if nothing else, galvanized the right wing to vote. I won’t vote for Romney or any other milquetoast moderate. But I’ll vote every time, and my vote will mean something—something besides, “He wasn’t as bad as that other guy, so you can put up someone else like him next time, too.”
Your own contention makes no logical sense.
If a McCain Administration had attempted the same overreach as Obama, they would have elicited the same reaction. You have no basis for your conjecture that McCain would have attempted to implement socialized medicine. None. You have merely extrapolated your dislike for McCain, to paint him as being as big a socialist as Obama. McCain was no Ronald Reagan, but he was no Obama either.
You have NO clue what you’re talking about.
A Mormon in the WH would be unprecedented; so you make here the logical fallacy error of equivalency: Deeming that the power construct within Congress is somehow approachable to the White House. It's not.
2) even if the Leaders wanted to "run things, " Romney would not be their candidate of choice-his politics are also left of the church...
Well, at least a better try here...but no cigar...
What too many FREEPERs fail to realize is that the Mormon church can be liberal when it wants to...and it's been awfully convenient for that to happen more and more the last few years.
Illegal alien liberal policy nuances... note these headlines:
* 2 LDS branch presidents in Utah deported to Guatemala, El Salvador
* Utahpolicy.com had a headline in 2011: Considering The Disconnect Between Some LDS Church Members and Leadership on Immigration
Abortion: The official Mormon church position (see
http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds_abor.htm) is that it's "OK" for an abortion if...
(a) Incest needs to be covered up;
(b) The baby is disabled and needs to be destroyed accordingly
(c) Mom's "health" (whatever that means...distinct from saying "life" of the mother)
(d) If the abortionist says it's "OK"
(e) If the Mormon god says it's "OK" in prayer...
E alone above could "justify" abortion to individual Mormons as long it overrides the person's conscience!
And if you need further evidence of just how liberal the Mormon church leadership can be when it wants to be, then look at how Harry Reid was welcomed with such warm open arms by an all BYU student & faculty occasion for Reid to speak there: Reid gets warm reception at BYU
Too many FREEPERS somehow think that Romney's wishy-washiness is "unconnected" to his faith. Well, the Mormon leadership has shown it can be morally wishy-washy whenever it's "convenient."
It was "convenient" for the Mormon church leadership to pass homosexual rights for Salt Lake City 'cause they were coming off of what the MSM regarded "negative" media play re: Prop 8 in CA.
It was "convenient" for their missionary program to support aspects of immigrants being here illegally.
Oh, right, if a moderate Republican president had tried to institute a huge, unConstitutional social program he would have been laughed out of the Congress. Kind of like George W. was when he passed THE LARGEST ENTITLEMENT INCREASE SINCE SOCIAL SECURITY. Obamacare got how many GOP votes? How many did the Bush prescription entitlement get? Try not to hurt yourself thinking about how that proves you are dead wrong regarding 'the same reaction' ensuing if a GOP president were to put through an unConstitutional medical program.
"You have no basis for your conjecture that McCain would have attempted to implement socialized medicine. None. You have merely extrapolated your dislike for McCain, to paint him as being as big a socialist as Obama. McCain was no Ronald Reagan, but he was no Obama either."
YOU have no basis for thinking that McCain is a movement conservative. The man prides himself on thinking outside the party, is lauded by the press for stabbing conservatives in the back as a "maverick," and could turn on conservatives at ANY time on ANY issue. It's an EXAMPLE, you yahoo--I'm not saying that McCain would pass Obamacare specifically, but that it's conceivable with his lack of principle that he could push ANYTHING, the Constitution be damned. And half the GOP would line up with him because so many people like you think that the GOP's president should be backed up, like Santorum taking one for the team. You're just proving again how some of the people can be fooled all of the time. To hell with Rudy McRomney!
While I am convinced he must, I doubt very much he will. There are a tone of things I love about NG (and a few I ‘really’ don’t), but I believe he would be a good president. Palin was my choice, but I’m aligned enough with Newt philosophically to be able to cast a vote for him without hating myself.
Because of the modern ‘dynamics’ of today’s political/media climate, a big media day can make/break a campaign. It’s insane, but it’s true. One sentence can and does turn campaigns around. Or one ‘action’. Bachmann lost it hiring the Rino, Cani with the Bimbo BS (setup, granted but it is an example), Perry did it with a word alone - “Heartless”.
If Newt were to do a PR/Press/event and say “BTW folks, In case you missed it due to non coverage by the msm, I’m still in the race and since I’m the only conservative standing, I’d like to introduce you to my running mate, Sarah Palin/Allen West (for example). We feel that Romney is not the right man for leading the country at this crucial juncture in history and we are asking that even if the GOP refuses to get behind us, you will.”
Something like that would instantly turn those dynamics upside down and whatever he does, he batter do it before any more primary votes are cast.
wow, very well said. Well thought, concise, with just a dash of “src” to keep it light. Considering the level of posts around these days, (mine included) I’d put your reply in the 96 percentile. However, I must in good conscience bring up an item or two. The geographical opposite of the (r) party is not a(d), and these days, the reverse is certainly not the case, or the opposite of Obama would not be likely Romney.
Even Newt is no more than a remnant of what was a pre-internet conservative elephant. There’s even been a new sex technique named the Gingrich style; everyone knows your done but you refuse to pullout...
But what drives me crazy is that Romney is not an Enigma, I held my nose while voting for Dole, knowing I was bailing the Titanic with a colander, Mc Cain, hoping that who ever this woman from Alaska was it wasn’t all bad, or Dole again, and now, it’s like -hmm- every time I cozyed up to a candidate this cycle, he and she was found to be too impure to run for office while what? Banks, tree huggers and the EPA try to screw up every industry we need to live, all sponsored by Obama.
Really? People that weren’t raised in a vacuum, or want a world modeled after Star Trek, they can still be MY choice!
But, the question... what do we do if Romney is the candidate... I’ve got to say, I haven’t nailed that one down for sure yet. You adults may need to work that one out for me, though it is strangely prophetic that Glocks response was #666
I am getting tired of wanting to be a conservative sponsored by the republicans and hating who they want to represent me with, and I’m about done coming to them, they’d better start coming to me or I’ll just work with the conservative part...
anyway thank you for a ray of thoughtful insight I’m rambling, and even spell check may not be able to save me soon.
again, nice job..
McCain was no Ronald Reagan, but he was no Obama either.Correct. McCain is an idiot, always has been. But to call him an Obama is stupid. It is, as a matter of fact, McCain-stupid.
Yes, but it will be a high-dollar bus with custom paint
and everyone will shout "YOU BETCHA!" when we toss her.
I will not cut my own throat to save my nose. And I will not put up a yard sigh for an abortionist/homosexualist/statist either in my yard or on my website!!
Unfortunately, it’s the Republicans who throw out their principles to vote for an unacceptable pro-abortion, pro-homosexual agenda statist who are going to deliver the Marxist. Romney is unelectable. Couldn’t even come close to a majority Republican vote in the bible belt. He’s a worse choice than McLame.
I’m with you, Boss.
No way in hell I vote for the cultist romney.
Glad you asked.
You are in error sir, check some of my posts or read this one more carefully...