All LDS beliefs are there for all to see and they are supported in almost all cases with biblical teachings. Most hate-mongering Christians do reject it, but that is rooted in their own personal problems and not specifically in the LDS doctrine. And you would be served to study the facts before spouting anti-mormon rhetoric that you got off a hate site.

Actually, I have studied Mormonism, from both ex-Mormons and the official LDS sites themselves. And contrary to your contention, many of them are actually contradictory to what the Bible says. (I guess these must be the places where they say the Bible was “not correctly translated”)

While they do indeed claim to be getting “continued revelations from GOD”, those “revelations” always seem to contradict themselves. Case in point: Brigham Young said that polygamy was necessary for salvation. Bruce McConkie said that polygamy was never necessary. Go figure.

The Ritz on June 17, 2007 at 3:57 PM

There was no discussion between us since this is your very first comment in this thread. So I don’t know where you get the idea it has “ended”. It never began.

I express my criticisms of freddie boy to point out the hypocrisy of the fred?heads who have bagged on Mitt and Rudy for their stances on abortion. fred? is a flip-flopper and I wont give him a pass on it until he explains it. Just like I expect Mitt! and Rudy to explain their “fluid” positions on abortion. Which, by the way, they have had the balls to do while fred? hides behind his wife and kids.

I am glad to see you agree that fred? has no executive experience at all.

As far as substantive issues, you can’t seriously expect me to believe that those are the only problems fred? has.

1) He is a faker. Red pickup truck and other nuances of the truth.
2) His 20+ years as an arm twisting lobbyist is a huge concern. Who were his clients etc.
3) His support of McCain/Feingold. OUCH!
4) His laziness.
5) His refusal to announce a date.
6) He refuses to debate real candidates.
7) He only takes softball interviews.
8) He only uses prepared speeches. His staff says he cannot speak extemporaneously.
9) He has had two dismally pathetic interviews. Leno and Robinson. Softballs.
10) His dismally poor record in the senate.

You can ignore those if you choose, but all those issues offend my conservative values and I am not going to give him one ounce of leeway until he grows some stones and becomes and actual candidate and answers those questions in a hostile environment.

I can live with the federalist approach to abortion, so this insignificant in the broader qualifications he has to be POTUS. Only he and Rudy are qualified in executive experience, strong against terror, and have shown a real desire to put forth ideas that lead.

csdeven on June 16, 2007 at 2:07 AM

You have seriously disappointed me here, CS. Some of my posts have been light-hearted jabs at you. In this one I am dead-serious. I wonder if you can see the incredible irony in your defense of Gov. Romney(above)?

In your relentless attacks on Fred Thompson there are two substantive issues you have pointed to in order to discredit his poetential candidacy.

1. Senator Thompson has no “executive experience.”
2. Senator Thompson has made statements in the past that seem to indicate a pro-choice stance.

That’s it. (The rest of your list of “objections” just loud clanging.)

So. Two issues on which you profess to take a principled stand. Yet here you are giving your preferred candidate, Gov. Romney, a near total pass on abortion – the more serious of the two concerns, saying his pro-choice ACTIONS are “insignificant”.

It’s Gov. Romney who has a history of votes that have failed to protect innocent unborn children. It’s Gov. Romney who instead used his executive position to protect the “right” a liberal SCOTUS conjured out of a twisted reading of the constitution. (By the way, how does that fact square in any way with your alleged libertariansim? It should be anathema to you!)

The irony? Senator Thompson consistently used his office to promote protections for the unborn. Rated 100% by the National Right to Life Committe. Yet you still raise concern over alleged pro-choice leanings? You’ve proven by dismissing Gov. Romney’s abandonment of unborn children that you don’t honestly care about this issue. And your unprincipled position is disgusting.

You incessantly bleat about Sen. Thompson being a “fake” at every opportunity. It is you, sir who is exposed as the FAKE.

By the way, if Gov. Romney’s executive action on this issue is the “experience” you so loudly trumpet, I couldn’t care any less for it. It’s despicable.

Our discussion has ended.

austinnelly on June 16, 2007 at 10:43 AM

If I was speaking in the sense of a general election I would agree, but I was not. The base, who do care about qualifications, will be deciding who is the republican nominee.

Mitt! has plenty of issues that we will explore most vigorously. We will do the same with Rudy. Rudy’s problem is he only has one strong area that people trust him on. Mitt! speaks well to many issues, but isn’t as strong as Rudy on the terror issue. That isn’t to say he isn’t qualified, because I think they both are more than qualified to be POTUS. And I agree that fred? is benefiting from his exposure on some TV show he was on, and as you pointed out, we need a leader. fred? is an actor acting as a leader and trying to do that the way actors do things. With lots of rhetoric and no real experience or qualifications.

Who ever we nominate needs to speak to base principles and be qualified to do the job. I don’t see one candidate that is the complete package….yet. Like I have already stated, I have eliminated all but 2 (Mitt! and Rudy)and maybe a third (fred? IF he ever grows a pair) from consideration. fred? is the longest of shots because he has zero experience and is coming off as a faker.

For one thing, they change their beliefs every few years, depending on who the “president and prophet of the church” happens to be (polygamy, blacks in the priesthood, etc.).

Sometimes that is true and that is because the LDS believe in continued revelation from God.

Second, they’re hesitant to tell you all their beliefs (there are millions of gods, God started out as just a man, we can become gods, etc) up front, because they know that most Christians would reject it in a heartbeat. This is, I believe, why Romney changes his positions so often. It’s an offshoot of his life in the LDS.
BigOrangeAxe on June 16, 2007 at 9:54 AM

All LDS beliefs are there for all to see and they are supported in almost all cases with biblical teachings. Most hate-mongering Christians do reject it, but that is rooted in their own personal problems and not specifically in the LDS doctrine. And you would be served to study the facts before spouting anti-mormon rhetoric that you got off a hate site.

Here is a link explaining how the early leaders and believers in Christ understood the principle of the deification of man. Take note of the biblical references.

Only he and Rudy are qualified in executive experience, strong against terror, and have shown a real desire to put forth ideas that lead.

This may mean a lot at your coffee klatches with other ‘smart’ people, but most people don’t vote this way. They will assume that if someone is running for President, they are ‘qualified’. By your rubric, none of the democrats are qualified. Yet they run. Well, maybe after Hillary wins you can file a lawsuit saying that she wasn’t qualified. By the way, where does it say in the Constitution to be President you have to have been a mayor or Governator (of even a crap state lake Taxachussetts?) Or are you quoting the ‘Smart Persons guide to nominating a Turd Sandwich candidate?’ Give up on Romney. The only steam he’s gathering is when they polish his teeth. He’s an unknown. Executive of a state that gave us the two most annoying senators on the planet (strike 2); most people when asked what they think of him answer: Who? (strike 3) Name recognition matters. Look at John McCain. Everyone knows him. His name is a synonym for ‘back stabbing weasel’. Rudy is the only decent candidate we have..and he’s got issues that are leaving some in the base uninspired. Fred has issues too and if he runs it remains to be seen whether he will overcome them as Rudy is currently attempting to do. Give up the policy wonk pretensions; they all talk a good game but most of them are lying. Think common sense. Our base has been betrayed and demoralized. This is different from the Reagan years; we were ready to take power..it was our turn. What we are battling here is our own party told us ‘F**k you’ over the immigration issue. Many see our own party as little different from the democrats. Why bother to show up? All they’re going to do is screw us anyway. Whoever we nominate has to inspire us and show that things will be different…and Romney doesn’t. Rudy is struggling against his own past…Fred is popular because people recognize him and he’s got the outsider thing going for him at the moment; this could change very quickly. That is reality; our own party has engineered an almost guaranteed victory for who (or what)ever the democrats nominate. Spare us the turd sandwich resume waving.

and all LDS males ages 11-15 are automatically registered.
manwithblackhat on June 16, 2007 at 9:49 AM

You are wrong about this. All LDS males have the choice to enroll or not. Everything else seems accurate except for fred? being the man. fred? is the least qualified candidate to be POTUS. Besides, he a fake.

Two interesting developments that intersect politics and modern technology two of them involving YouTube. First want a chance to appear in the next presidential debate? Well here is your big chance: CNN and You Tube are partnering up for the……

For one thing, they change their beliefs every few years, depending on who the “president and prophet of the church” happens to be (polygamy, blacks in the priesthood, etc.).

Second, they’re hesitant to tell you all their beliefs (there are millions of gods, God started out as just a man, we can become gods, etc) up front, because they know that most Christians would reject it in a heartbeat. This is, I believe, why Romney changes his positions so often. It’s an offshoot of his life in the LDS.

Against Boy Scout ban on gay troop leaders:
Boston Globe article

Well, he can kiss the Mormon vote goodbye. Mormons comprise about 20 percent of the BSA membership. It is a component of their religious formation program, and all LDS males ages 11-15 are automatically registered. While gay leaders are tolerated in Scout programs of other countries, the LDS is a major factor in not allowing them here. I agree with this policy, but if Mitt doesn’t…

That’s one more reason why FRED! is the man.

Are you saying I don’t need to go dig out my old X-Files “Trust No One” T-Shirt?

Exit question, then: Is this really a big deal?

It could be a big deal to a significant portion of the people he’s gonna need to get the nomination.

I’ve never been much for one issue politics unless that issue is a matter of honor etc. So, if I had a problem with MITT!, it would be the seriousness of his commitment when he had his conversion. Surprisingly, I respect him for sticking to his campaign promise not to weaken the current MA abortion laws. I guess he never said he would strengthen them, so vetoing new abortion measures would not be breaking his promise.

I can live with the federalist approach to abortion, so this insignificant in the broader qualifications he has to be POTUS. Only he and Rudy are qualified in executive experience, strong against terror, and have shown a real desire to put forth ideas that lead.

I’m sure we haven’t heard the last of it, but eventually, I think Mitt! will weather it just fine.

I think that Mitt wants to pad his godhood resumé and what better job to say you deserve to be a god than the U.S. presidency. He doesn’t just want a planet to himself (that he can populate with spirit babies that he makes with his goddesses), he wants a BIG planet.

JackStraw on June 15, 2007 at 11:04 PM

Dude, IT DOESN’T MATTER! Learn to read! All I said was, Jack was right that the perception the Romney is dishonest and a political opportunist was going to be a big problem for him given the political environment.

Someone asked for a clarification, I clarified, then you went Batsh!t crazy with this “well I guess we should vote no one” crap, and you know bloody well that ain’t what I meant. The perception is, Romney=BS Political Opportunist, Fred=genuine about opinions and policy. And its gonna hurt Romney. I DIDN’T DECIDE THAT, ITS POLITICAL REALITY, and I AM MERELY OBSERVING IT.

Jack, you really are being a pissy jerk today. And a dense one too…

Same goes for a whole boat load full of RINOs that we pretended were conservatives.

When this guy nominates his first SCOTUS justice, and she turns out to be Ginsburg in red, remember this day.

Why don’t you ask your candidate why he was not only a supporter but a champion of that absurd piece of crap and why he is now running from it as if it was radioactive.

Fred has an amazing record of 8 years in the Senate and having his name on almost zero legislation. Accept this turd. Thats both reality and perception. Amd yea, theres a damn good reason he hasn’t bothered to hit the debate trail yet. He can explain why STFU is not a real good proposition.

JackStraw on June 15, 2007 at 10:36 PM

Huh? Are you saying they’re all equal in that regard? I don’t think so, but maybe. Look, its irrelevent, perception is often reality in politics, All I said was I agreed with Jack M.

Oh, STFU!

Can you say that here? I thought we were only allowed to say balls.

Don’t be disengenuous, nobody’s perfect obviously, but people are gonna go with who acts like they believe what they say and will see it through the most.

Indeed. And when I stop heating the incessant and mind numbingly stupid “Mitt is a flip flopper!” as if it meant balls then I will stop calling people when they flip flop over to the candidate they adore who flip flops out his balls.

Good. Then its settled. Every single politician who has changed his mind on an issue is off the table.

We will vote for nobody and like it. And yea, that includes Fred.

JackStraw on June 15, 2007 at 9:15 PM

Oh, STFU! I wasn’t making an absolutist statement, and you bloody well know it! Don’t be disengenuous, nobody’s perfect obviously, but people are gonna go with who acts like they believe what they say and will see it through the most.