EPTRepublican nominations - Page 127
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
BioNova
United States598 Posts
| ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
On October 18 2011 11:38 ayaz2810 wrote: And the role of religion in this whole thing... that part is downright frightening. I think it's all garbage to begin with, but Mormonism takes the nuttiness of religion to a whole new level. And people actually seem to LIKE THE GUY. Dudewhat.jpg People actually LIKE A MORMON!? How frightening! | ||
|
Ayaz2810
United States2763 Posts
On October 18 2011 11:49 jdseemoreglass wrote: People actually LIKE A MORMON!? How frightening! "The Book of Mormon is a sacred text of the Latter Day Saint movement that adherents believe contains writings of ancient prophets who lived on the American continent from approximately 2600 BC to AD 421.[1][2] It was first published in March 1830 by Joseph Smith, Jr. as The Book of Mormon: An Account Written by the Hand of Mormon upon Plates Taken from the Plates of Nephi.[3] According to Smith's account, and also according to the book's narrative, the Book of Mormon was originally written in otherwise unknown characters referred to as "reformed Egyptian" engraved on golden plates. Smith claimed that the last prophet to contribute to the book, a man named Moroni, buried it in a hill in present-day New York and then returned to earth in 1827 as an angel,[4] revealing the location of the book to Smith and instructing him to translate and disseminate it as evidence of the restoration of Christ's true church in the latter days." I could not have any respect for someone who believes this garbage. You'd have to have the reasoning ability of a 4 year old to consider any of it true. And to have someone that believes this... like truly BELIEVES it... gain a position of power... ugh. User was warned for this post | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
Belial88
United States5217 Posts
I don't mean to be offensive to christians here with that comment, but the point of the comment is not to piss of christians, it's to point out that people hating someone for being mormon is ridiculous. Obama after all is christian. It's amazing to me when people say republicans are 'christian nutjobs' or 'religious fanatics' as if democrats are any less 'nutjob'. You don't think Obama shares the same feelings based solely because of his religion? Somehow, when a Democrat is christian, he's just getting votes (which is dishonest, yet it's okay somehow that he is a liar instead of actually christian), but when a republican is christian, he's a religious fanatic. Again, if you think I'm being offensive towards christians with this post, you're missing the point. | ||
|
Josealtron
United States219 Posts
On October 18 2011 14:02 Belial88 wrote: I don't see how being mormon is any crazier than being any other type of christian. I don't mean to be offensive to christians here with that comment, but the point of the comment is not to piss of christians, it's to point out that people hating someone for being mormon is ridiculous. Obama after all is christian. It's amazing to me when people say republicans are 'christian nutjobs' or 'religious fanatics' as if democrats are any less 'nutjob'. You don't think Obama shares the same feelings based solely because of his religion? Somehow, when a Democrat is christian, he's just getting votes (which is dishonest, yet it's okay somehow that he is a liar instead of actually christian), but when a republican is christian, he's a religious fanatic. Again, if you think I'm being offensive towards christians with this post, you're missing the point. Lol, wow. You seriously can't see the difference between Obama and the republicans when it comes to religion? Obama doesn't try to force his religious beliefs into law, or deny people(like gays) their rights because of his faith. That's what Republicans do. He keeps religion a part of his private life and it would be stupid to have a problem with that. The problem is when people try to use their religious beliefs to shape laws, especially when those laws are used to discriminate against certain groups(see Herman Cain's comments on Muslims, or every Republican's comments on gays) And yes, hating someone for being a mormon is ridiculous, but the rest of your post is still completely wrong. | ||
|
fenix404
United States305 Posts
i personally am tired of mitt romney being somehow the guy we need. who REALLY made that decision. he's all big business, and TOO religious (agreeing slightly w/ above post). there ARE religious nutjobs on the right (romney, huckabee, hannity) that somehow think the founders were ALL christian, and that "one nation under god" (which is NOT in the constitution) means christianity. the founders were closer to gnostics, but they CERTAINLY weren't roman catholic. there are also plenty of us that might consider ourselves "right" (for me it's constitutional conservative) that are NOT religious nuts, whatever we may believe, b/c we understand what the constitution means, and that the whole idea of organized religion is a scam (money+spirituality=religion). be warned though: when fascism shows its face in america, it will be carrying the cross, and wearing the flag. | ||
|
BioNova
United States598 Posts
If Rush Limbaugh is endorsing Ron Paul's economic plan. Right there is your debate. I despise Rush, Love Ron. Rush is now claiming that Ron Paul's economic plans were his idea's, at least to one of his callers. This is more about kicking Romney in the knees, than supporting Paul of course. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On October 18 2011 22:40 BioNova wrote: I'm getting a bad feeling about this thread. The debate is on tonight and hopefully CNN will stick to more important topics than candidates choice of higher power. Romney is not a guy where we find ourselves going..'hmmm.. what to criticize' He's too flip-flop. Even if he's on Top, he's on bottom. In the age of government transparency, Romney is see thru. If Rush Limbaugh is endorsing Ron Paul's economic plan. Right there is your debate. I despise Rush, Love Ron. Rush is now claiming that Ron Paul's economic plans were his idea's, at least to one of his callers. This is more about kicking Romney in the knees, than supporting Paul of course. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6vGk1wdJKA&feature=player_embedded I don't think that Rush was endorsing Ron Paul's specific economic plan so much as he was endorsing the scope of its cuts (at least that's what I gather from that clip). This isn't really anything new. Serious fiscal conservatives (like Rush, Tea Party politicians/supporters, etc) have all been calling for spending cuts of this magnitude. Hell, I've lost count of the number of posts that I have made on TL advocating such cuts over the past year. EDIT: Well, it looks like Rush did say that Ron Paul "stole" his idea of freezing federal spending at previous annual levels (like 2008). http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2011/10/17/ron_paul_has_a_good_idea_no_really | ||
|
Bibdy
United States3481 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On October 19 2011 00:53 Bibdy wrote: Watching Romney deal with this Occupy Wall Street thing, and how his opinion changes from black to white, based entirely on the 'temperature' of the audience he's standing in front of, tells me he's just a tool. Disappointing. It'll be a GWB-like disaster all over again if Republicans have to settle for that guy. I agree that Romney is a tool, which is why he's having trouble getting above the 20-30% support range in polls. I don't think it's fair to compare him to Bush, though. For all that Bush was, he definitely was not a tool. Bush had positions and he led, albeit in many directions that I disagreed with. Romney is the perfect example of why picking a "moderate" candidate is usually a waste of time. Moderates (with some exceptions) don't stand for anything. They stick their fingers up in the wind and choose whatever the popular position is. They don't lead, they react. They don't have any core principles, which makes them unpredictable. I would always rather have a principled candidate. I want to know where the candidate stands. Many other conservatives and republicans agree, which is why Herman Cain is enjoying a popularity boom. We know where he stands and what he wants to do. This is also why, although many of us disagree with his policies and would not vote for him, we grudgingly admire Ron Paul. | ||
|
BioNova
United States598 Posts
On October 19 2011 01:06 xDaunt wrote: I agree that Romney is a tool, which is why he's having trouble getting above the 20-30% support range in polls. I don't think it's fair to compare him to Bush, though. For all that Bush was, he definitely was not a tool. Bush had positions and he led, albeit in many directions that I disagreed with. Romney is the perfect example of why picking a "moderate" candidate is usually a waste of time. Moderates (with some exceptions) don't stand for anything. They stick their fingers up in the wind and choose whatever the popular position is. They don't lead, they react. They don't have any core principles, which makes them unpredictable. I would always rather have a principled candidate. I want to know where the candidate stands. Many other conservatives and republicans agree, which is why Herman Cain is enjoying a popularity boom. We know where he stands and what he wants to do. This is also why, although many of us disagree with his policies and would not vote for him, we grudgingly admire Ron Paul. Honesty gets you in the parking garage.. self defense gets you out. That SNL clip is still tickling my brain haha. In your opinion , you mention moderates. I tend to agree with what you have to say about that. but speaking of tickling my brain. Herman Cain has said he would rely on his advisors. So at what point would you concede that the only difference between Cain and Romney, at this point is how well the two have rehearsed what they have been told to say. Romney has danced here before, and is seasoned, Cain relying on intel or reports, would, be vulnerable to special interest groups? I see no difference, despite tax plans/57 points of light being the obvious. | ||
|
Kiarip
United States1835 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On October 19 2011 02:17 BioNova wrote: Honesty gets you in the parking garage.. self defense gets you out. That SNL clip is still tickling my brain haha. In your opinion , you mention moderates. I tend to agree with what you have to say about that. but speaking of tickling my brain. Herman Cain has said he would rely on his advisors. So at what point would you concede that the only difference between Cain and Romney, at this point is how well the two have rehearsed what they have been told to say. Romney has danced here before, and is seasoned, Cain relying on intel or reports, would, be vulnerable to special interest groups? I see no difference, despite tax plans/57 points of light being the obvious. I don't think that reliance upon advisers, in and of itself, is indicative of anything, other than that refusing to rely upon advisers is a sign of poor judgment. Presidents need advisers because they obviously can't be experts in every matter that they'll face. There's simply too much for one man to know. What really matters is the judgment and wisdom of the president, which will dictate both whom he selects to be his advisers and how he will respond upon receiving information from his advisers. Thus, when Herman Cain says that he doesn't necessarily know what he'd do in certain foreign policy situations because he does not yet have all of the information, I believe that he's absolutely correct. It's a brutally honest and refreshing answer. As I pointed out earlier in this thread, no candidate is really going to know what they're going to do until they arrive at the White House. Just look at Obama. His policies have been largely divergent from what he campaigned on -- especially his foreign policies. As for comparing Cain to Romney, I haven't seen anything from Cain that suggests to me that the guy is a waffler. In fact, every personal account that I have read from people who have worked him acknowledges that he is a leader in every sense of the word, and his colleagues respected that quality even if they disagreed with where he was leading. | ||
|
BioNova
United States598 Posts
On October 19 2011 02:30 xDaunt wrote: I don't think that reliance upon advisers, in and of itself, is indicative of anything, other than that refusing to rely upon advisers is a sign of poor judgment. Presidents need advisers because they obviously can't be experts in every matter that they'll face. There's simply too much for one man to know. What really matters is the judgment and wisdom of the president, which will dictate both whom he selects to be his advisers and how he will respond upon receiving information from his advisers. Thus, when Herman Cain says that he doesn't necessarily know what he'd do in certain foreign policy situations because he does not yet have all of the information, I believe that he's absolutely correct. It's a brutally honest and refreshing answer. As I pointed out earlier in this thread, no candidate is really going to know what they're going to do until they arrive at the White House. Just look at Obama. His policies have been largely divergent from what he campaigned on -- especially his foreign policies. As for comparing Cain to Romney, I haven't seen anything from Cain that suggests to me that the guy is a waffler. In fact, every personal account that I have read from people who have worked him acknowledges that he is a leader in every sense of the word, and his colleagues respected that quality even if they disagreed with where he was leading. Thanks, I just had to ask. I don't feel like I know much about Cain. Somehow he's not familiar with neoconservatism, other than a label. Always feel like he's playing dumb, not is dumb. | ||
|
Kiarip
United States1835 Posts
His tax-plan is finally thoroughly analyzed, and he's been refuting that analysis by simply saying that "the analysis is wrong." His stance on the FED and Greenspan appals me. I understand he may have loyalty towards his old boss, but still... When he's proven wrong and questioned about it he says he'll talk to his advisors, but he never comes back with the answer... Does he mean he'll talk to them AFTER he's nominated, or elected president even? | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On October 19 2011 02:38 BioNova wrote: Thanks, I just had to ask. I don't feel like I know much about Cain. Somehow he's not familiar with neoconservatism, other than a label. Always feel like he's playing dumb, not is dumb. For what it's worth, I think that Cain's answer to the "neoconservative movement" question was technically correct. I am not sure that there is a recognizable "neoconservative movement" because there is quite a bit of dispute and ambiguity over what neoconservatism is. At the core, the unifying aspect of neoconservatives is an aggressive, unilateral foreign policy. Beyond that, all bets are off. I'm guessing that Cain doesn't really appreciate nuance here, but it doesn't really matter to me. It was a stupid question that is open to all sorts of misinterpretation, which I am guessing that Cain sensed. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On October 19 2011 02:47 Kiarip wrote: I've said this before, but I still feel like he is being intentionalyl a very populist candidate of little actual substance. He uses his lack of experience as defense against difficult questions that every single candidate needs to be answering. His tax-plan is finally thoroughly analyzed, and he's been refuting that analysis by simply saying that "the analysis is wrong." His stance on the FED and Greenspan appals me. I understand he may have loyalty towards his old boss, but still... When he's proven wrong and questioned about it he says he'll talk to his advisors, but he never comes back with the answer... Does he mean he'll talk to them AFTER he's nominated, or elected president even? Of all of the negative reviews of the 999 plan that I have seen, none has had thorough analysis of its deficits. Could you link the best one? EDIT: And to be clear, what I'm looking for is something that shows some technical flaw in the plan, not something that merely reiterates obvious philosophical differences. | ||
|
Belial88
United States5217 Posts
Lol, wow. You seriously can't see the difference between Obama and the republicans when it comes to religion? Obama doesn't try to force his religious beliefs into law, or deny people(like gays) their rights because of his faith. That's what Republicans do. He keeps religion a part of his private life and it would be stupid to have a problem with that. Most republicans aren't out to deny gay's any rights. Most republicans think that there should be no federal mandate on gay marriage, and that states should vote on the issue of gay marriage case by case. And many republicans would say they are against straight marriage, in the sense that neither gay or nor straight marriage should be endorsed by the federal government. That said, Obama doesn't support gay marriage. And rofl at 'keeping religion in his private life'. You do realize that just like every christian republican, he 'talks' to god and prays right? He goes to church every sunday. | ||
|
Kiarip
United States1835 Posts
On October 19 2011 02:56 xDaunt wrote: Of all of the negative reviews of the 999 plan that I have seen, none has had thorough analysis of its deficits. Could you link the best one? Well first of all according Bloomberg it's no revenue neutral and is short 200 billion dollars worth of revenue which is approximately 9% of the tax revenue. He also claims/implies that he eliminates the payroll tax, but it's in fact rolled into the corporate tax, because there's no deduction to the corporate/business tax based on the income tax in his tax plan, so the payroll tax is still there at 9%. So this tax change actually raises the taxes for a lot of the lower and middle class that he claims it actually lowers them for. I don't have any link to a particular study but if you just google herman cain 9 9 9 payroll you'll see tons of articles discussing this. Seems like a very convenient "oversight." Most republicans aren't out to deny gay's any rights. Most republicans think that there should be no federal mandate on gay marriage, and that states should vote on the issue of gay marriage case by case. And many republicans would say they are against straight marriage, in the sense that neither gay or nor straight marriage should be endorsed by the federal government. actually I think most republicans want to just straight up ban gay marriage. It is the libertarian view however. That said, Obama doesn't support gay marriage. And rofl at 'keeping religion in his private life'. You do realize that just like every christian republican, he 'talks' to god and prays right? He goes to church every sunday. that's part of his private life... what are you even trying to say? | ||
| ||
