ROMNEY WINS 12 WYOMING DELEGATES-- BUT THE END OF THE ROAD FOR HIS PATHETIC CAMPAIGN IS JUST AROUND THE CORNER
>
Jonathan Martin at the right-leaning Insider Establishment's Politico pointed out that all the other pathetic pygmies detest Romney and that none of them would want him on their ticket as a vice presidential nominee. "It's been a dominant theme of the GOP campaign and it's hanging over this debate tonight: Mitt Romney is despised by his fellow candidates."It isn't just because he's the richest-- which is, after all, something Republicans usually worship (especially this particular lot). It has more to do with the incessant flip-flopping and the sense that he'll say anything it takes to get a vote and that he has no inner core whatsoever. Since Iowa he has started sounding more and more like Obama, yammering about "change," something conservatives find almost as distasteful as revolution.
With McCain pulling ahead in New Hampshire, Romney's campaign is getting close to its last act. It looks like his laughable and irrelevant win among Wyoming Republicans caucusgoers-- yeah, they had a little caucus/p.r. stunt there yesterday, and Romney came in first-- will, in retrospect, have been the sad apogee of his costly White House bid. Mormons make up about 10% of Wyoming's population but have a disproportionate presence among the GOP there. Romney's other big constituency, Big Pharma CEOs, aren't as well represented. People noticed him kissing up to that particular constituency in last night's debate-- and they didn't like it.
As McCain and the Huckster viciously and effectively pointed out this evening, Romney is indeed the candidate of change-- or at least of ever-changing positions. Bob Novak's latest Republican Party column focuses on Romney's dilemma about how to most effectively attack McCain. His instincts told him to go for the immigration jugular, but New Hampshire is far less of a Know-Nothing hotbed of racist bigotry than Iowa, and Romney's anti-immigrant stand didn't do him any good in Iowa.
Desperate to save Mitt Romney's Republican presidential campaign in Tuesday's New Hampshire primary, his advisers all wanted to attack Sen. John McCain but were divided about how to do it.
Coming out of his disappointing performance in the Iowa Caucuses, the Romney camp was united in the need to hit McCain hard for voting against President Bush's tax cuts. But the decision also to attack McCain's support for the liberal Bush immigration reform was opposed by a minority of Romney's advisers. These dissenters argued that Romney's hard line on immigration taken in Iowa did him no good there.
Meanwhile, the latest Rasmussen Poll shows that Obama would decisively beat whichever of the pygmies wins the worthless Republican nomination. And if Obama keeps saying this-- that his first act as president will be to disengage American troops from Iraq-- he will beat Hillary. That is, after all, what most Americans, especially most Democrats and independents, want. She doesn't understand; or rather the useless Insider Establishment consultants who run her show don't.
#
Labels: Mitt Romney, Republican presidential race
posted by DownWithTyranny @ 6:51 PM
49 comments
|
Reddit
49 Comments:
I am an independent, but I am curious. Why is it when Romney points out what he views as negative policies about his competitors he is involved in dirty politics, but when him personally and sarcastically on live TV it is somehow funny or O.K.? Please explain.
Republicans are weird. I don't know the answer to your question and I can't make myself think like a Republican but here's an analysis of the pygmies from a GOP perspective in the new issue of Time. It's short and to the point-- and gives credence, though its irrelevence, to the argument that the GOP ought to take a decade off and get their shit together.
To 8:28pm. I am a Republican on domestic issues, but an independent. The reason Romney does not get sympathy is because he is a corporate executive in orientation, and does not rub politicians (people persons) the right way. Romney is very smart, but he comes off as too smart by half to the politics crowd. Romney has adopted extreme positions these days when he was a moderate not too long ago. And he appears to think he can take any position he chooses simply through his superior competency. I like his competency, but he is someone that would not make small mistakes, but could make big ones.
Explain something to me, please. If someone we know personally refuses to change his or her mind over time, when more information surfaces, or circumstances change, we call him/her stubborn and stupid. When a candidate changes his/her mind about an issue, he/she is "waffling". I'm not talking about basic values such as honesty and morality. Those things can't change, but most of us have changed our minds on many issues over the months and years, as new information comes to us and as we age and gain wisdom and experience. I think Mitt Romney is a very intelligent man who is capable of leading this country in a positive direction. I also think he has courage and integrity. What's with all the hostility toward him?
Well, he got a lot of people on his payroll to defend his flip-flop approach of everything but everything. He just changes his mind every 2 seconds and has no spine whatsoever. Corporate executives with millionaire salaries are the ones that actually threw us on this Economic Catastrophic Depression we going into. So, when he stops to pay all this people that jump on blogs to defend him lets see if they will still defend or will just flip-flop like him and Hillary.
ill tell you why a lot of people dont like romney- he worked for years as a consultant at a company that was paid big money to basically destroy peoples lives in the name of competitiveness. he comes across as nasty, self serving, and supercilious. he is in demeanor at least, a republican version of hillary clinton, a smart know it all with few likable attributes.
Romney is smarter and sharper than the rest, which makes him smell blood, and they fear him. I don't want Romney as president though because I care most about foreign policy, and he is not grounded enough for me. But I would love to work with him in the private sector.
I'm less certain than you seem to be about how "smart" and "sharp" Willard is, although you did qualify your assertion with "than the rest." And the rest of the Republican menagerie is, as Newt Gingrich assessed it, pretty damn pathetic. That said, I think the reason people are revolted by Willard is not because he has changed a position or two based on new information and intelligent reassessment based on facts but because he comes across as someone with no core beliefs whatsoever, except an unquenchable lust for power and wealth. Clearly, his position changes (flip-flops) are based on political expediency. Wake up, sir, and take a look at your broken down loser of a candidate. The American people will never buy into this bloodless nerd. Look what happened in Iowa, where he was beaten by a dismal, primitivist clown. Open your mind and take a look at John Edwards; you may be pleasantly surprised.
What the heck has Mitt Romney flip flopped and what is he changing his mind about every 2 seconds??? He changed his position on abortion as evidenced by his actions as governor for four years. Other than that what else has he changed his opinions about? People who claim this are ignorant and uninformed.
I didn't follow Mitt's positions very closely over the years, but I do remember when he had a more moderate stance on domestic and foreign policy issues. One thing I want to add (smarter and sharper) above is he comes across as dogmatic, which reminds me of our current commander in chief.
What flip-flopping are you and the other haters referring to? Say it enough times and everyone will believe it, right? Get a life.
downwithtyranny - Allow me to let the air our of your John Edwards balloon. Have you heard the story that goes, when he was chosen by Kerry as his running-mate, he told Kerry he had something to tell him he HAD NEVER TOLD ANYONE? Then he goes on to explain that on his son's death bed he dedicated himself to public service. After Edwards left the room, Kerry says, "great story, but I liked it better the first time he told me a few weeks ago." J. Edwards is the worst kind of phony. The kind that trades on his dead son. That's worse than phony, thats positively sick! Kerry himself found Edwards detestable.
Romney on the other hand is what politicians have such a hard time comprehending - a decent man. I know Mitt. He is what we SHOULD want in a President. He succeeds at what he pursues. He is highly intelligent. He has charisma. We can (and unfortunately probably will) do much worse in a President.
Mitt could have been President. A large group of bigoted Evanglicals may be to thank if he does not win. I guess we now know they don't stand for the country's best interests as much as they stand for ignorance and hatred. Well done Iowa Evangelicals. They weren't voting for a weak southern Baptist Governor so much as they were voting against Mormons.
Two of my coworkers were astounded that despite the rampant racism in e country (their thoughts not mine) Iowans who are whiter than Richie Cunningham picked a black man. What they failed to recognize is that the torch has been passed in America. Racism is no longer acceptable. And apparently what American can abide is religious bigotry.
dumbass from detroit,
So, according to your considered opinion, its the snake-handlers vs the magic BVD guys and the serpent boys are winning because people in Iowa are intolerant of the Mittster's relgion?
Is that about it?
Oh yeah, and you met Mitt one time in the employees bathroom of one of the companies he was dismantling and he tipped you for the towel.
How bout' enlightening us as to why, if Mitt is such a prince, virtually every other candidate treats him with visible comptempt and disdain? Do you reckon that's purely religious bigotry too?
cbear,
what's with all the hatefulness and ridiculous comments? all the candidates gang up on mitt because he's the one who can defeat them all and they all see him as the biggest threat to their chances. grow up and say something intelligent.
joshua,
Fair enough, I'll answer your question.
I have nothing but contempt for a guy who will come on this blog and spew an incredibly hateful story UNSOURCED regarding John Edwards and the death of his child...and then try to tell us that, based on his personal observation, Mitt is a "decent" guy.
Well guess what partner, based on my personal observation from reading his comment, I think DAVE is an asshole and wouldn't trust his characterization of the Romney family dog.
Furthermore, I just listened to your hero Mitt call for the deportation of 12 million human beings (men, women, and children) regardless of their circumstances, just last night.
Why?
I think you and I, and every other reasoning person, knows that's not even remotely feasible, even if it were desirable.
And, I'm certain Mitt knows it too.
But, for nothing more than a momentary political advantage, he will advocate it, and thus add to the hate and fearmongering that is tearing this country apart.
It does not matter what the issue--war, religion, etc--Mitt will say anything to gain power.
Additionally, I find it laughable in the extreme that as DAVE decries the Evangelicals for rejecting Mitt because of their "religious bigotry"...Mitt himself will use every last fundamentalist dog-whistle possible to court their support.
So, do I "hate" Dave?
No, I just think he is uninformed dirtbag and I choose to deal with people like him by ridiculing them.
Finally, let's talk about you my friend. In your comment at 10:36 pm you state "...what else has he changed his opinions about? People who claim this are IGNORANT and uninformed."
Now I'm not sure where you're from, but from where I come from, that's pretty goddamn insulting. Some people might even call it "hateful".
Get a clue buddy.
Really? A $100,000 bucks from a sleazy lobbyist working for the Saudis?
Good for him.
Now he's only a couple of hundred million behind your guys.
I don't use words like ignorant lightly, and I don't mean to insult anyone. Still, I have yet to hear about anything Mitt has flip flopped on. Sure he has changed his position on abortion and all his actions since have shown that this change was sincere, but no one has been able to come up with any legitimate flip flop. There's only the accusation without any examples or evidence. Therefore, I stand by my assessment that people who make foolish statements without information or documentation or example is ignorant.
You're purposefully being ignorant about Mitt because you like him so much Joshua. Mittens governed my state like a flaming, well, moderate. And when he ran against Ted Kennedy for the Senate in the mid 90's, he said he would be "promote gay rights better than Ted Kennedy". Promote!!! Now he hates the fags, demagogues against them whenever he can. He said in the same campaign that he rejected Ronald Reagan's Presidency as too extreme. Now he's Reagan reborn. He said he was pro-choice (his exact words? "we should sustain and support Roe vs. Wade); now he's pushing that Constitutional amendment to ban abortion. Why in God's name would you believe anything that came out of his mouth? When he's here in MA. he runs like a flaming Liberal and when he's running for the nomination of your lunatic party he's a conservative and that's just fine with you? Wake the fuck up!
Oh...here's a video of him debating Ted Kennedy. Enjoy if you have the balls (and stomach) to watch it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9IJUkYUbvI
cbear - The source for that story about Edwards is from Bob Shrum's book No Excuses. And by the way, Shrum is a lib. This isn't Ann Coulter I'm quoting, it's ne of your own. It's hardly unsourced. I didn't directly quote what was said but the facts are correct. If it is a lie then Shrum and Kerry can apologize. As for me, I am just it passing along.
Regarding how I know Mitt - I never claimed to be Mitt's golfing buddy but certainly I know him better than you seem to know Edwards judging by the fact that you had never heard that story which you falsely called "unsourced" and which was widely reported.
Regarding Mitt talking about deporting illegals. You're flat out wrong to suggest it isn't feasible. Roosevelt did the same thing during the Great Depression. Look it up. Again, you don't seem to be in possession of all the facts.
And regarding my charge of bigotry in the Iowa caucus. I'll go so far as to admit that I was angry when I wrote my last post. I still stand by what I wrote. I think it is fairly obvious that the only way a candidate without ANY political organization and ZERO name recognition wins against names like Rudy and Mc Cain is by people only knowing one bloody thing about him - that he is a Baptist Preacher. Mitt on the other hand was ALL OVER the place in Iowa. You couldn't have missed him. So why did Iowa Repubs ignore a strong front runner with solid credentials for a quetionable outsider? Well, they certainly knew Mitt was Mormon. You couldn't have missed that fact what with Hucabee trying to mention it on the skly al a "I' no expert but don't Mrmons believe...". Further, Evangelical pastors literally said "a vote for Mitt is a vote for Satan". Then on Caucus night HALF of all Repub voters were Evangelicals. It was more than twice the turnout of Evangelicals as usual. So those are the facts that lead me to believe that bigotry drove the results. Iowans weren't voting FOR Huckabee they were voting against Mormons. Oh, that and two years of being spit on, cussed at, and generally pestered by .....most prominently......wait for it....Evangelicals. That's what I experienced as and LDS missionary. So thats my reason for looking at the facts and taking a wild guess that the hatred Evangelicals have for Mormons just might have played a tiny role.
Now CBear, any chance you can ratchet down the venom a tad?
dave,
"Oh, that and two years of being spit on, cussed at, and generally pestered by .....most prominently......wait for it....Evangelicals. That's what I experienced as and LDS missionary."
Let's all take a wild guess here and try to figure out exactly what "mission" you were on in Iowa that led to these vicious attacks on you by the snake-handlers.
Hmmm, you're a Mormon (as is your pal joshua), according to your blogger profile you're from Detroit, and you just can't seem to find any inconsistencies in any of the Mittster's positions, despite the fact that the great majority of both lib and retard sources in this country seem to easily have reached that conclusion.
Call me crazy, but I think you're "mission" in Iowa was helping your boy Mitt get elected.
Tell me how I'm wrong Davey?
And if I'm not wrong, then tell me how your coming on this blog and repeating a vicious slur re: Edwards while proseltyzing for Romney is not worthy of both contempt and derison.
CBear - Why do you call the story I repeated about Edwards a "viscious slur"? I was all but directly quoting a book by another lib. Please tell me what I did wrong? Should I disregard all books by libs or just those with things you don't like?
Regarding my mission, I served an LDS mission in California. I was not in Iowa. But I did hope Iowa would stand for something more than religious favoritism. I was dissapointed by the results which is what I expressed.
I hardly am supporting Mitt because he is LDS. If Harry Reid ran for President I'd never vote for him. But Mitt is a solid conservative and shares my values. I could do worse in a President.
And I never claimed that Mitt didn't change any positions or any such ting. Re-read my posts, You are putting words in my mouth.
But regarding Edwards, as I said, all I did was quote a book by a lib. And you called me all kinds of awful things as a result. In fact I didn't even make the story nearly as bad as Shrum made Edwards out to be. Shrum says Edwards staff could recite the story verbatim that Edwards claimed he "never told anyone before". Kerry (again according to Shrum) saw Edwards as a big phony but was persuaded to pick him regardless. If you don't like the story then call Shrum and John Kerry an "a-hole" and an "uninfomred dirtbag". It's their story, not mine.
Also I stand by my treatment as a missionary. And I'll grant you that missionaries that knock on your door are a bit of a lightning rod. Thankfully I generally found that Protestants, Catholics, and atheists treated me pretty well. But I'd be a fool to ignore my experience and assume that the Evangelicals that came out of the woodwork in Iowa were merely asserting a difference of opinion rather than bigotry.
dave,
You just don't get it man, and I'm tired of trying to explain it to you.
cya
Gooood everyone! Use your aggressive feelings towards each other! Let the hate flow through you! Heh heh heh heh.
CBear - All you need to explain to me is why you called my a dirtbag and a-hole for repeating a story from a book by a lib that is reliably sourced but which you claimed was un-sourced.
You're not "tired of trying to explain" anything. You're just trying to avoid the obvious point that you got owned.
dave, you have to overlook the cbear, he is like a little kid how has just found an unabridged dictionary and gets a vicarious thrill looking up and using the dirty words. As long as I have been reading this site, he has never had an original thought. His posts are usually in the vein of "yeh man that's right" if he agrees with a post or "you dirt bag, SOB, a-hole, dumb-f"
Don't expect anything else, he is just not up to intellectually!
Notice cbear that he ignored my entire post (and link) detailing Mitt's constant flip-flops, undoubtedly because it's an inconvenient fact. It's always the same shit with these right-wing hypocrites...do as I say, not as I do. Or in this case, as in Bush's, Larry Craig's, Mitt's, etc., etc., so long as they talk a good game, their actual history doesn't matter. So any blip on a Dem's record is a matter for serious scrutiny, while Republican distortions, lies and corruption...they're actually just clarity, truth-telling and honesty!
james,
I did notice that bro.
BTW, if you click on Dave and Joshua's names it will take you to their Blogger profiles which shows you that they are Mormons. Nothing wrong with that of course, but electing Mitt is a crusade with them and sanctioned by their church. I'm pretty sure that there are any number of these guys across the internets tasked w/ posting comments on blogs they would not otherwise read.
Btw, I think Al is a dumb fuck. What are your thoughts?
CBear - Nice try. First, my comment about Edwards had nothing to do with Mitt. I was simply responding to other comments about Edwards that had been made. It was a totally separate comment that had nothing to do with promoting MItt. I could care less who dems pick. Frankly I'd prefer you did pick Edwards. I think he'll be easier to beat than Obama who I tend to like (just not for his politics). I just finds Edwards beahiuour to be slimy but again he's your guy so pick him if you like.
You seem to to be the one who has the fallacious argument. You might also bother to look up the words ad hominem attack. Although you seem to be very adept at such attacks so I guess you already know the meaning of that word.
Regarding your assesment that the Church somehow sanctions Mitt candidacy, that is absolutely laughable and false. The Church always stands strictly neutral in elections. they offer press releases to his effect every election. If you are simply going to make up facts there is little hope of an intelligent exchange. Your suggestion that Mormons are somehow stalking the internet for Romney shows you have no grounding in reality. You might as well calim the Men in Black are following you. You seem more than a bit paranoid about Mormons. As a Mormon myself, let me tell you that Mitt also has to persuade he LDS. I can't speak for every Mormon but certainly his candidacy enjoys greater popular support among the LDS (much as Blacks like Obama, Evangelicals like Huckabee, and men like Hillary) but in my congregation I find support for Obama, Mc Cain, and others to be equally strong. Utah has great affinity for Mitt not only because of his faith but his solid delivery on the Olympics. That and the fact that few states are as conservative as Utah. My own support for MItt is due primarily to my personal experience with him and his family than his faith.
But why am I wasting my breath on you. You get all mortally offended and call names when I simply repeat a widely reported story about Edwards. When I support the story with chapter and verse you simply change the subject and ignore the fact that you reported to nasty attacks that were obviously un-warranted.
Oh yeah, here it is once again just to get you really into a tizzy: According to John Kerry and Bob Shrum, John Edwards uses his son's death to gain advantage and sympathy. According to Shrum, Edwards phoniness made Kerry sick to his stomach.
I can repeat it again in case you missed it this time Cbear?
And since when is sighting a source important to you? You've made all kinds of wild claims here about my faith with nary a source. What a hypocrite!
cbear, this is without a doubt the dumbest statement I have ever seen on this website: "Finally, I chose to stop responding because you are apparently too stupid to realize that, whatever the source of the story, it is still nothing more than a hateful story and does not speak at all to the merits of your candidate."
The vast majority of "articles" on this site are hateful stories about someone; mostly Republicans but even a few Democrats.
Now, go read the article on time.com, not exactly a right-wing publication:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1626498-2,00.html
The crap is starting to pile up around your candidate. 1st the $100,000 sleazy donation from a lobbyist and registered foreign agent working for the Saudi Government and now this!
I'm so sorry to see that you are still SOS.
Oh, I'm beginning to think that while Al is a major Dumb Fuck, he's got a couple of Morons, er, Mormons giving him a run for his money.
"The Church stays neutral in elections". Wha????????? Black people are rooting for Obama, Catholics rooted for JFK, and retards rooted for George W. but we're supposed to believe that the Mormon Church and our Mormon friends are neutral in a race where a fellow Mormon is running? Riiiiiight. This is why a lot of people think there's something shady with Mormons and their Church...the ability of our Mormon friends to lie so blatantly, naively thinking that everyone will buy their bull because of their dazzling smiles.
Dave,
Gee buddy, I'm so sorry if I posted a false story about you and your church's activities in support of the Mittster. I read that it was true on several conservative websites and because they are part of your team I assumed it must be true and reflective of your character and veracity. I mean, if a conservative said something derogatory about another conservative, then according to your own reasoning re: Edwards-- IT MUST BE TRUE!
Oh yeah, God forbid I should say anything disparaging about anybody's religion, unless it goes something like this:
dave from detroit- "A large group of bigoted Evanglicals may be to thank if he does not win. I guess we now know they don't stand for the country's best interests as much as they stand for ignorance and hatred."
Jeez Dave, that sounds an awful lot like an ad hominen attack to me.
Finally, I could give a rats ass about either the LDS or the snake-handlers, they are both cults as far as I am concerned, what concerns me is that people like you are so blinded by your religion and your political views that you can't even see your own hypocrisy.
James_Boston,
I think Dave is almost as dumb a fuck as Al, only slightly more sincere. Your thoughts?
A sincere fool is still a fool cbear. I agree with you about all of them, the Evangelicals, Mormons, Catholics (of which I am one, unfortunately)...they are all cults, to a greater or lesser degree. But I really think it's too bad about Mitt's candidacy and how it's gonna obliterate the perception of the Mormon people 'cause I've known a few Mormons and they were nice, much nicer than other "Religious" folk I've encountered. And they weren't nearly as stupid as Dave makes them seem. They're a kind, family-oriented bunch but they'll never survive the exposure of their Church to the media light. Their beliefs are just too weird, even by the rather low logic standards of Religion. I mean when you die you go to heaven, but it's actually a planet filled with people (and wenches of course) which you're given to rule over for eternity? Almost makes the Muslim and Evangelical belief system seem reasonable. Perhaps Mitt and Dave's insanity is the result of this inane bullshit they're force-fed since birth.
James,
I agree with your comment about the Mormons. I'm actually quite good friends with a number of LDS members including a very famous golfer (I work in the sports industry) and one of their most senior Elders. Some of the nicest most generous guys you could ever meet with absolutely wonderful families. I've spent a lot of time out in SLC and Draper, Utah as their guests.
It is unfortunate what is happening to the LDS folks as a result of Mitt's oh-so-obvious panderings and willingness to say absolutely anything in pursuit of his ambition.
Of course, having dumb fucks like Dave out and about displaying their ignorance will also have a less than salutory effect on their cause.
CBear - Calling a "large group of Evangelicals" bigoted is not an ad hominem attack. Ad hominem means "to the person" or "to the man" and refers to personal attacks direct at one person. My comments might have been unfair or even unkind and I admiited they were said in angry reflection on the Iowa caucus. None of this means my comments were wrong. It is entirely plausible that bigotry drove the results although it is rediculous to assert that ALL Evangelicals or ALL Huckabee supporters are bigoted.
Your attacks calling me an a-hole are EXACTLY an ad hominem attack and are in NO WAY possibly correct since calling someone such is merely an insult.
That the LDS faith is somehow the instigator of a subversive plot to put Romney in power should be obviously false and it's not acceptable to say that you 'read it on the net'. Anyone should have a little objective distrust of a statement made on a blog or many other places on the web(including my comments). Certainly no reputable news organizations have reported anything like that.
OK, I'm done. Now you can begin making a bunch of nasty insults.
James_Boston - When I said that the LDS church remains neutral on electorial politics, I was stating a fact. To which your only response seems to be to act incredulous and use exclamation points. In every election year, the church leadership sends out a press realease declaring their neutrality and only asking members to be sure to vote. This statement is read from EVERY LDS pulpit in the nation. In my 13 years as a Mormon (I wasn't born into the faith despite your assumption) I have NEVER heard a declaration in support of a particular candidate. Do Mormons favor one party? Of course. Do they favor Mitt? Certainly. Do they favor him strongly? Not from my perspective. That's just my opinion as someone who knows thousands of mormons, you can believe it or throw insults as you wish.
Dave,
OK man, you are a sincere person, albeit misguided and less than self aware IMHO.
I will not personally insult you in this reply, although if you were to read my posts closely you would see that my insults were (in most cases, admittedly not all) intended to provoke a reaction from you that proved my point of your intolerance and bigotry, however unintended.
I'm sorry Dave, but you fell quite easily into those traps and have not been very adept at extricating yourself from them, although I'll give you points for trying.
You may not like the words I have used to point out the inconsistencies in your views and statements, but if you examine the points I have raised, while discounting the language, I think even you know that your first post was poorly written, mean-spirited, and open to question if not ridicule.
Just try to examine your own predjudices before accusing others of theirs. I'll try to do the same.
BTW, look up the initials JH in your church hierarchy. That's my very good friend of many years I referenced above.
So just wondering...if it was bigoted Evangelicals that lost Iowa for Mittens, who lost him New Hampshire tonight? I mean he was governor of my state which is right next door and he has a vacation home in N.H. and yet he's losing here by an even larger margin than he lost Iowa. Perhaps, just perhaps, it's not just Evangelicals. Perhaps God hates Mitt too :)
james-boston - Don't count your chickens. They've counted less than 11% of the vote. But should Mitt lose NH (a dinstinct possibility) there is no question that Evangelicals played little or no role. Thta just makes my frustration with Iowa even greater. Huckabee won't win much more and may have only succeded in being a spoiler for Mitt. I think Mitt is a fundamentally better candidate than Mc Cain. In a million years I wouldn't vote for Huckabee. As Bob Schieffer on CBS said, Huckabee is no more than a nice smile and shiny shoes. But Mc Cain (while by no means what I want in a candidate) is acceptable. If somehow Huckabee were to get the Nom. I have no idea what I'd do. Swallow the bitter pill and vote him in? It's unthinkable.
CBear - Don't try to hide your nasty language and attacks behind some superficial veil of "provocation". It's a lot more likely that you couldn't mount an intelligent response to my points. Nice try. And I don't care if you golf with Gordon B. Hinckley. Your name dropping doesn't make you any more articulate. I haven't been trying to extricate myself from anything. I've merely offered my sincere thoughts on what drove the results in Iowa. That's how I roll. And seeing as you are neither an evangelical or a Mormon I can't imagine how you could expect to know much about the situation.
To be honest, I think this whole issue of Evngelicals having a serious bias against Mormons is just totally new to the folks here. Why not try asking a few Evangelicals what they and their church believe about Mormons. Many will throw out words like cult and satanic and tell you they would never vote for a Mormon. Is that a majority? No, but I would honestly wager it is a majority of serious evangelicals and probably close to 35% of all evangelicals according to polls.
If Rush Limbaugh called Muslims part of a cult lead by a maniac in Mohammed would you think he was being reasonable or would call such an attitude bigoted? What about Jews? I am simply applying the smae standard and calling the opinions of TOO MANY Evangelicals bigoted towards Mormons.
OK, I know you guys are sick of me so I won't bother you any more.
Oh calm down. Most of us here hold all your religions in equal contempt so don't go away mad. It truly isn't personal with me and I don't think with cbear...we just think all you religious types are all a bit off. So the sight of one group of wackos calling another group of wackos, well, wackos, is a bit weird. You're all equally crazy. Though the Muslim fanatics may have you beat by a hair.
Guess it's a bad night for you 'cause of Mittens so I'll stop being bitchy...for now ;)
I don't know where you live cbear but I'm in Commie central so I never run into that type of person. So when I chat with a Dave or Joshua, while I think they're as crazy as you do, I'm more apt to make fun of them, not get pissed. They don't get to me though I understand why their stupidity gets to you (I assume it's 'cause you probably live in a very red state and run into these fuckwads every minute of every day and you're fed up?) To me they're a curiosity to be studied and made fun of. I'm always incredulous that I actually share a government with these people but like I've said before, I have a buffer of several Northeastern states between me and them so it's easier to pretend I'm part of Canada.
Daytona Beach bro, although my dad was a Colonel in the Army and I grew up living all over the world.
Plus, I used to open nightclubs and later manage bands and produce concerts all over the South.
The last 15 years I've been a marketing consultant, mostly sports related, and have been alternating between Daytona, Newport Bch, Ca. and Bangkok.
I think the 17 years in the nightclub and concert business kind of scrubbed the patience off...I just don't deal well with asswipes.
BTW, AL was really off his meds in a upstairs thread and I had to step in and slap him around pretty harshly. The wimminfolks were getting scared. We may be in for a long nite.
Link to the bitch slappin' thread please? I've gotta go for a little while but I'll be back to read it.
It's a good night when Mittens loses and Al cries. God (not the Mormon one) Bless America!
its the next one up from here where dumb fuck al attempts to argue Chimpy's valedictory service in the National Guard.
Yeah, I had to step in.
Let's take it upstairs from now on... I just posted below your Manchurian comments. Plus I'm tired of punking these Mormon kids..its becoming too much like shooting ducks on the water.
OK I must be a glutton for punishment. Or I just love wathcing CBear bust into his four-letter vocabulary. Anyway, here goes:
James_Boston - I joined the LDS church 13 years ago so regarding your point about Blacks, I gotta tell you that was always difficult for me. It bothered me and still does. What I can tell you is 1.) Blacks have always been welcome as members of the LDS church, but they were denied being priests until 1978 (perhaps a minor distinction to you but different nonetheless), 2.) I personally haven't found mormons to be racist and IMHO they are less racist than the general population, and 3.) If I had chosen a Christian faith based upon their historical treatment of blacks I'm not really sure where that'd leave me. Methodists, Baptists, etc. all have guilt in this regard. But Mormons have never believed/taught that blacks can't go to heaven. That's rediculous. I'm sure someone may have told you that but they were wrong.
And James, I ignored your point about Mitt lacking core beliefs because 1.) I was having too much fun bothering CBear, and 2.) your point is a bit nebulous to begin with. How do I respond when your point is Mitt "lacks core beliefs". About all I can say is "nope, you're wrong". Maybe you made a specific charge that I missed. Otherwise it's a pretty broad, subjective point to argue. If you were talking about his position on abortion, I realize he fundamentally changed his mind. I don't have any real issue with that. Reagan changed his mind about abortion. I did. Most people probably have. If you want to argue that his position change was politically expedient fine, but again thats a bit subjective since none fo us can know what's really in Mitt's mind. I take his word because I have seen his character in various circumstances.
If a friend of yours finally relented and changed to your viewpoint on an issue and you knew the person to be sincere would you flip him off and tell him to stick to his "core beliefs" or would you be glad he finally came around?
Ahh but what am doing trying to be sincere with you fine folks. That's another 10 minutes of my life I'll never get back.
Dave-
"..none fo us can know what's really in Mitt's mind. I take his word because I have seen his character in various circumstances."
Just because Mitt didn't say "Thanks, Piss Boy" as he was leaving the bathroom, and he put the quarter in your hand rather than toss it in the piss pot you were holding--doesn't make him a good guy. (h/t Mel Brooks)
As for the:
"...10 minutes of my life I'll never get back."
I'm sure someone, somewhere will be grateful to James and I for saving them 10 minutes of being harangued by you and your earnest buddies.
Have a blessed day.
Oh yeah,
I'll leave it to James to address the LDS's curious views regarding blacks and their suitability for inclusion in the church--but I think I can safely say that some 8 million or so Latinos might find your boy Mitt's call for their arrest, detention, and deportation, slightly problematic.
Of course I'm sure the men, regardless of their misgivings concerning the proposed adventure, will be particularly grateful that Mitt's commitment to strong family values will allow their women and children to accompany them on their exciting, and no doubt eventful, journey back to home and hearth.
And hey, if things don't work out quite so well for them, not a problem--they can always look forward to the Mormon's welcoming them back into the fold in 30-40 years.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Yeah I guess I was totally out in left field about Kerry hating Edwards. Obviously Kerry loves Edwards. He loves him so much he endorsed Obama! Man, you really gotta hate a former running mate to do that to him. Wonder who it was that suggested Kerry thinks Edwards is a big phony?
Post a Comment
<< Home