Here we go: Romney Super PAC rolls out first Michigan attack ad against Santorum

posted at 8:42 pm on February 14, 2012 by Allahpundit

Via BuzzFeed. As expected, they’re going hard after his fiscal heresies. I’m giving you Santorum’s new ad here too, which is noteworthy first because he touts his tea-party cred (ironic) and second because he’s now making electability a core component of his pitch. No other Not Romney has been in that position before — but the numbers do back him up, for now:

One thing that has remained constant in the ever changing GOP Presidential race is that Mitt Romney is the strongest candidate against Barack Obama…at least until now. PPP’s newest national poll finds Romney trailing Obama by 7 points at 49-42, while Santorum trails by only 5 points at 49-44

Santorum’s net favorability is 21 points better than Romney’s. Santorum’s at -7 (39/46), while Romney is at -28 (29/57). That’s mostly because Republicans like Santorum a lot better (+40 at 62/22 to Romney’s +2 at 43/41). But Santorum also does a good deal better with independents, coming in at -6 (40/46) to Romney’s -23 (32/55). In the head to heads Obama leads Romney by 9 with independents, but has only a 4 point advantage on Santorum with that group.

Santorum’s also viewed slightly more favorably by independents than Romney is, and his favorable rating among Republicans is now a point better than Mitt’s — thanks to a 13-point surge since last month among Republicans who lack a college degree. Gonna be awfully hard for Santorum to resist going full metal populist on Romney if those numbers hold or even improve. On the other hand:

I’m amazed that Mitt’s numbers are perfectly steady over the past month. I guess the loss in South Carolina to Newt, the big win in Florida, and then the kinda meaningless but kinda not sweep by Santorum in the midwest last week all canceled each other out. But this is what I meant in yesterday’s post about a potential Romney death spiral: What happens if/when these perceptions of his electability start to fade? If Santorum beats him on his own turf in Michigan, will undecideds and other tepid Romney supporters start to break toward Sweater Vest because they finally believe that he really might win? See why Michigan is so huge now?

Exit question: Will Romney challenge Santorum’s supposed electability on grounds that his social views are too far right? Don’t look now but there’s already a gender gap developing between them.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 8 9 10

hawkdriver on February 15, 2012 at 9:07 AM

I really dislike the deliberate misrepresentation of a person’s views. People are welcome to oppose Santorum, or Romney, or any candidate–why can’t it be based upon what the person actually believes, instead of exaggeration?

DrMagnolias on February 15, 2012 at 10:17 AM

Same here Doc. I was talking with Mrs. Hawkdriver and she agrees that the commenters here have made it near impossible to stand. We had a bit of a contest to see what would be a good name if Hot Air were to change it’s name to better represent it’s majority of commenters now. Some were … (in no particular order)

The Big Shill
Shill Bill
Shill Death Do Us Part
Hamburger Shill
Beverly Shillbillies
Beverly Shills 90210

I’m sure there’s more. What’s sad is how we assume the leanings of the staff. I did it too in making a statement about a picture of Santorum that was used. In retrospect, a poor comment on my part.

hawkdriver on February 15, 2012 at 10:48 AM

hawkdriver on February 15, 2012 at 10:48 AM

This made me laugh aloud. Good names, all. I’m guilty, too, of assuming about the staff, and although I did not see your comment about the picture, I’ve never seen you comment in a way I thought was unfair, hysterical, or otherwise objectionable.

DrMagnolias on February 15, 2012 at 10:59 AM

Yep, and don’t forget that many of these same Romney-haters who call themselves conservatives also like to threaten to happily vote for Obama if they don’t get their way. I think that says it all.

bluegill on February 15, 2012 at 7:40 AM

Ya Know …
Wee fish, I’ve been reading this blog for years and I’ve never seen anyone but Leftist trolls and whacked-out PaulNuts say anything close to that.

Some of US have principles.

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on February 15, 2012 at 11:03 AM

How did you arrive at “the trinity explanation is false doctrine” from ‘Jesus’ baptism’?

listens2glenn on February 15, 2012 at 10:09 AM

I got caught up with that idiots hypocrisy and bigotry.

My understanding of the trinity is that God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are all one in the same entity. His church teaches the trinity and the word isn’t even in the bible. At the baptism of Jesus, all three members of the Godhead were present as three separate entities. Jesus in the water, God speaking from heaven, and the Holy Ghost in the form of a dove.

I am still waiting for a rational explanation as to what happens to the Jesus skin suit when Spirit God wants to switch from Jesus God to Holy Ghost God.

csdeven on February 15, 2012 at 11:08 AM

This made me laugh aloud. Good names, all. I’m guilty, too, of assuming about the staff, and although I did not see your comment about the picture, I’ve never seen you comment in a way I thought was unfair, hysterical, or otherwise objectionable.

DrMagnolias on February 15, 2012 at 10:59 AM

It was unfair on my part. He was just picking up steam and the main comments at the time were his appearance. I thought the thread header pictures set the tone. Nothing in the header will change the tone though for some. I did apologize.

hawkdriver on February 15, 2012 at 11:08 AM

hawkdriver on February 15, 2012 at 10:48 AM

There’s no doubt that some commenters appear to be “shills” for a particular candidate, but IMHO, a lot of the ‘problems’ are due to knee-jerk reactions. And yes, I’ve been guilty of such too.

But there are a few people here who are so adamant to prove “I’m right, you’re wrong”, they remind me of this.

Flora Duh on February 15, 2012 at 11:08 AM

But there are a few people here who are so adamant to prove “I’m right, you’re wrong”, they remind me of this.

Flora Duh on February 15, 2012 at 11:08 AM

lol. Gruesome.

hawkdriver on February 15, 2012 at 11:13 AM

Annar on February 15, 2012 at 7:39 AM

So, you believe in incest? Or maybe you are a member of NABLA? You see, if their were no laws affecting sexual behavior, these would be allowed. Idiot.

fight like a girl on February 15, 2012 at 11:16 AM

Or maybe you are a member of NABLANAMBLA?

fight like a girl on February 15, 2012 at 11:20 AM

For Mark:

As quoted from the Reason article :

Santorum needn’t have worried: In this year’s contests, he’s regularly drawn more support from Tea Party voters than Ron Paul, who has been described as the “intellectual godfather of the Tea Party movement.”

I thought Rick Santelli was ?

Exit polls show Santorum beating Paul among self-described Tea Party supporters in Iowa, South Carolina and Florida, trailing him only in independent-heavy New Hampshire and Nevada.

“…trailing him only in independent-heavy New Hampshire and Nevada.

Are these the real TEA party members? Does the author even know what he means ? He and you AND Santorum and ESPECIALLY Romney appear to be confusing libertarianism with the TEA party.

To: DevilsPrinciple on February 15, 2012 at 8:27 AM

It’s called reading, that is how I discovered this quote from the very leftist magazine and website, Reason.com.

Ok, you’d have done well to include that in your first post on this topic to make it clearer.But still, by posting the article AND quoting from it, you seem to agree ?

Here’s the link:

http://reason.com/archives/2012/02/14/santorum-is-severely-wrong

All I have done is used Rick’s quotes, I don’t have to resort to name calling.

Who called you a name ?

The question is now that you have your quote and its source, what do you do with the newly acquired information.

Reply to you. Since there appears to be a reasonable conversation to have with you.

mark cantu on February 15, 2012 at 8:36 AM

I appreciate you taking the time to post the link for the article. The article was useful and raised more questions for me than answers. I’m not sure what to make of Santorum yet, even though he hails from the Commonwealth I reside in. For the TEA Party to support him at this point, if exit polls are any indication, says to me, that there are serious issues of distrust with Romney and his record as Governor and that Paul isn’t charismatic enough. Santorum is probably a reasonable compromise (though I disagree) for the ” Tea Party” ( IF exit polls and definitions are accurate) members given their demographic.

To that end, “compassionate conservatism” has a hollow ring to me especially coming from a leftist magazine.
Being self-reliant, wanting to keep more of the money one earns and having a genuinely smaller government,having zero tolerance for intrusive government are not less compassionate notions. They are the principles this nation was founded upon. And dare I say, most reasonable ones as well ?

We were not founded as a Democracy, which we have become, but as a Constitutional Republic. There is a vast difference and none of the GOP candidates fits that description. I’m certain Santorum doesn’t meet that criteria and neither does Romney.

DevilsPrinciple on February 15, 2012 at 11:23 AM

They are still attacking Gingrich, btw. Mitt’s Super PAC received a rating of pants on fire for their attack on Newt in SC which is being trundled out again in Georgia:

The Restore Our Future website says the $60 million went to the United Nations Population Fund and that President Ronald Reagan withheld funds from the program after he determined the program, which supports family planning and contraception, was supporting Chinese actions.

The bill did propose money for the United Nations Population Fund. But Section 1102, Part C, of the bill prohibits using any of the funds for “the performance of involuntary sterilization or abortion or to coerce any person to accept family planning.” That is the exact opposite of the language in Restore Our Future’s ad about Gingrich.

Y-not on February 15, 2012 at 11:33 AM

IndeCon on February 15, 2012 at 10:22 AM

I would have liked to have heard the questions, and the full answers–on its face, the video seems to be missing a great deal of context. For example, I’m actually in agreement with him about earmarks, within the context of the system we have in place right now–if the citizens of PA, or MT, or VA are paying taxes to the federal government, it seems reasonable for their representatives to try to get some of it back. The problem is the out of control federal government–if it were whittled to its Constitutional limits, there would be no such thing as earmarks, or “entitlements,” or any of these nightmare fiscal problems we currently face.

DrMagnolias on February 15, 2012 at 10:38 AM

I know, you’re right about the video; I’m searching for a complete version.

Santorum has many questionable (conservative?) stands in his past record; too many to list here, but here are a few:

Rick voted against the National Right to Work Act of 1995

Measure Number: S. 1788 (National Right to Work Act of 1995 )
Measure Title: A bill to amend the National Labor Relations Act and the Railway Labor Act to repeal those provisions of Federal law that require employees to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment, and for other purposes.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=2&vote=00188

Rick voted for HR 3448 Minimum Wage Increase bill

voted for Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which imposes job-killing federal regulations on businesses

for CAFTA, which removes duties on textile and apparel goods traded among participating nations, resulting in nearly all textile companies leaving the South

for taxes in the Internet Access Tax Bill

IndeCon on February 15, 2012 at 11:47 AM

Flora Duh on February 15, 2012 at 10:17 AM

I know, right? Interesting is it not?

Cindy Munford on February 15, 2012 at 11:49 AM

IndeCon on February 15, 2012 at 11:47 AM

Okay, that‘s important. Thanks for the info.

DrMagnolias on February 15, 2012 at 12:01 PM

So, you believe in incest? Or maybe you are a member of NABLA? You see, if their were no laws affecting sexual behavior, these would be allowed. Idiot.

fight like a girl on February 15, 2012 at 11:16 AM

Spoken like a true inbred.

Evidently, your parents missed the No Incest allowed laws memo if you feel compelled to post this sort of nonsense. If laws prevented anything it would be,by now, stopped, and you would never have posted this inane remark.

DevilsPrinciple on February 15, 2012 at 12:05 PM

IndeCon on February 15, 2012 at 11:47 AM

Question. Who do you think is conservative in the race?

hawkdriver on February 15, 2012 at 12:18 PM

IndeCon on February 15, 2012 at 11:47 AM

PS, you’ve really mischaracterized a lot of that legislative voting. The legislation itself in some cases.

hawkdriver on February 15, 2012 at 12:23 PM

hawkdriver on February 15, 2012 at 12:23 PM

Hawk, educate me. I know that bills are often a jumble of things that make supporting or rejecting them a mixed bag (land, how I long for the Constitution), but some of this rings true (minimum wage, for example) because Santorum claims to represent the blue collar worker.

DrMagnolias on February 15, 2012 at 12:30 PM

Just Released

Santorum’s ‘Rombo’ ad accuses Romney of launching ‘ugly attacks’

Flora Duh on February 15, 2012 at 9:11 AM

..tend to support Romney here, but this *is* a funny ad. I like the look-alike.

The War Planner on February 15, 2012 at 12:31 PM

There’s no doubt that some commenters appear to be “shills” for a particular candidate, but IMHO, a lot of the ‘problems’ are due to knee-jerk reactions. And yes, I’ve been guilty of such too.

But there are a few people here who are so adamant to prove “I’m right, you’re wrong”, they remind me of this.

Flora Duh on February 15, 2012 at 11:08 AM

..on fire this morning, ma’am! Too funny. You caught me in one of my calmer moments.

The War Planner on February 15, 2012 at 12:34 PM

I have a question for all of the newfound Santorum supporters – what has he ever done in his life that makes you think he is up for the job as president?

Notice I didn’t ask where he stands on any issues, just qualifications. Remember that we have a president today who came from the Senate a back-bencher with basically the same resume and where has that gotten us?

Tater Salad on February 15, 2012 at 12:40 PM

If you are from Michigan and you want to vote for Romney,make sure you vote on Feb 29th.

Conservative4Ever on February 15, 2012 at 12:53 PM

I dont think Santorum is going to get us to the finish line. Too much of a big government kind of guy, even if he is social conservative. This election will NOT be about social issues but economic issues. Even Romney is better on the economy. Dont like Newt either. Cant we bring back Perry?

WyoMike on February 15, 2012 at 1:13 PM

People are catching on toe Romney’s weird, bizzare cult beliefs (Mormonism). Sorry Romney-heads…it’s true.

jfs756 on February 15, 2012 at 1:22 PM

Whats so funny about this whole Santorum vs Romney thing is that those of you who now find yourself rooting for Santorum, because all the other candidates have flown by the wayside, don’t realize you’re being played like a fiddle by Obama.

You don’t think Obama’s announcement about the contraception issue isn’t an interestingly timed event? Here Obama sees the Republican primaries going on and sees that it’s now down to Mr Mormon Romney and a Compassionate Conservative Catholic named Santorum. He knows this issue helps Santorum with the conservative base, because he sees the distrust “real” Christians have against Mormon Christians.

He knows that by injecting religion into the topic he can split the vote among Republicans such that they go with religious affiliations and get the one guy Obama fears out of the way, because Obama knows that Catholics and evangelicals outnumber Mormons by the millions and knows of the distrust they have towards people of the Mormon faith.

You jackasses don’t realize your being played by the media and Obama’s minions.

I’ll pull the R lever when it comes time, whoever that happens to be, but if we elect Santorum as our candidate, we’re screwed.

Santorum will make this a Democrat vs Republican election (another tight election with only a few million spread between them), Romney will make it a right vs wrong election.

SauerKraut537 on February 15, 2012 at 9:19 AM

This!

Gunlock Bill on February 15, 2012 at 1:23 PM

Gedge on February 15, 2012 at 3:31 AM

Selective memory much? The anti-Mormon bigotry began in 2008 and it continues to this day. And I haven’t seen any anti-Christian bigotry by the Mormons here. I’m sure the reason why is because they are Christians themselves.

csdeven on February 15, 2012 at 8:27 AM

Sorry, but you’re completely wrong. Mormonism is a cult, plain and simple. They are absolutely not “Christians themselves” as you say. Their beliefs are completely weird and bizarre and outside of mainstream Christianity. You really need to read up on exactly what Mormons believe. It’ll shock you.

jfs756 on February 15, 2012 at 9:39 AM

csdeven’s point is thus proven.

Gunlock Bill on February 15, 2012 at 1:32 PM

Again, Mormons are definitely NOT Christians!

Why? Because, mainly, Mormons do not follow or believe in the historic Jesus Christ of the Bible, but rather in a different Jesus. This is why most Biblical Christians emphatically insist that Mormons are not Christians. Let me explain.

The god of the Mormons is not the God of the Bible. To the Mormons, Jesus is the firstborn son of an exalted “man” who became the god of this world. The man-god of Mormonism was made the god of this world because of his good works on another planet somewhere out in the universe. He “earned” godhood, and was thus appointed by a counsel of gods in the heavens to his high position as the god of planet Earth. The Mormon god of this world was a man, like all men, who became a god. This is what the celestial marriage and the temple vows are all about. LDS men, by doing their temple work, are striving for exaltation by which they, too, shall one day become gods. Their wives will be the mother goddesses of “their” world and with their husband will produce the population of their world. This is the Mormon doctrine of “eternal progression.”

jfs756 on February 15, 2012 at 9:47 AM

Could you provide authoritative official “Mormon” sources for any of this stuff? You know, like “official” Mormon websites or books?

Gunlock Bill on February 15, 2012 at 1:37 PM

Mormonism denies the Bible

jfs756 on February 15, 2012 at 10:26 AM

Well, this is obviously false.

If you can’t even get this simple thing right, how can we trust anything you say?

Gunlock Bill on February 15, 2012 at 1:42 PM

So, we have a guy in the White House that pretends to use the Bible. You’re telling us to be afraid of a guy who might actually use the Bible. You would like us to choose a guy who has a special Bible that you swear he won’t use. We are gaining how?

SurferDoc on February 15, 2012 at 10:30 AM

I suppose the King James Version of the Bible IS special. I don’t see that as a problem. Do you?

Gunlock Bill on February 15, 2012 at 1:45 PM

So, we have a guy in the White House that pretends to use the Bible. You’re telling us to be afraid of a guy who might actually use the Bible. You would like us to choose a guy who has a special Bible that you swear he won’t use. We are gaining how?

SurferDoc on February 15, 2012 at 10:30 AM
I suppose the King James Version of the Bible IS special. I don’t see that as a problem. Do you?

Gunlock Bill on February 15, 2012 at 1:45 PM

Say, Gunlock Bill, how’s the vocabulary work coming along? I know how hard it is for you to continue to type “bigot,” and “moron,” and “racist,” et al., on a daily basis! I realize how tough that must be to come up with more ways to describe people who don’t adhere to your anti-Christian viewpoints…. :)

jfs756 on February 15, 2012 at 2:00 PM

Note the following quote from the Mormon Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, page 123, made by the LDS Apostle Orson Hyde:

“Remember that God, our heavenly Father, was perhaps once a child, a mortal like we ourselves, and rose step by step in the scale of progress, in the school of advancement; has moved forward and overcome, until He has arrived at the point were He is.”

Lorenzo Snow, late President of the Mormon church, made this statement in the second verse of his famous poem entitled, “Man’s Destiny”:

“As Abra’m, Isaac, Jacob, too, babes, then men–to gods they grew. As man now is, our God once was; As now God is, so man may be,– Which doth unfold man’s destiny. . .”

The God of the Bible is not an exalted man. The God of the Bible is omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient. The Bible says He is the only God and there are no other Gods. He had no beginning or end and he is a spirit being and never was a man.

jfs756 on February 15, 2012 at 2:02 PM

Orson Hyde, the Mormon Apostle said, “We say it was Jesus Christ who was married in the marriage of Cana of Galilee” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 2, page 80).

Brigham Young, said, “When the Virgin Mary conceived the Child Jesus … He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. And who is His father? He is the first of the human family” (Journal of Discourses, pages 50-51).

Compare this with the Word of God, “And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:35).

Mormons teach that Jesus Christ suffered for sin in the Garden of Gethsemane when He sweat “as it were” great drops of blood. Mormons totally avoid the Biblical teaching of Christ’s atonement for sin which was accomplished on the Cross.

Note the following quote from, “What Mormons Think of Christ” (LDS publication, pages 32-34):

jfs756 on February 15, 2012 at 2:04 PM

The Tea Party is supporting someone who voted for the bridge to nowhere. Talk about a 180…

rubberneck on February 15, 2012 at 2:09 PM

Mormonism denies the Bible

jfs756 on February 15, 2012 at 10:26 AM
Well, this is obviously false.

If you can’t even get this simple thing right, how can we trust anything you say?

Gunlock Bill on February 15, 2012 at 1:42 PM

I would implore Mormons to honestly and openly examine their teachings about God and Jesus Christ and examine who the Bible defines as being a Christian. There is no benefit in calling yourself a “Christian” when Biblically you are not.

jfs756 on February 15, 2012 at 2:09 PM

Note the following quote from the Mormon Journal of Discourses

Well, first off the Journal Of Discourses is not canon. It is no revered as scripture and you can quit quote mining it. Most Mormon’s likely don’t even know of it’s existence. Because it is not scripture, and not even revered as scripture it can be ignored.

I would implore Mormons to honestly and openly examine their teachings about God and Jesus Christ and examine who the Bible defines as being a Christian. There is no benefit in calling yourself a “Christian” when Biblically you are not.

jfs756 on February 15, 2012 at 2:09 PM

Please, share with the class where the Bible defines who is Christian and who isn’t. Then take a look in the mirror and tell us if you even qualify.

I am still waiting for a rational explanation as to what happens to the Jesus skin suit when Spirit God wants to switch from Jesus God to Holy Ghost God.

csdeven on February 15, 2012 at 11:08 AM

Really a Jesus Skin suit? Could you be any more offensive? Do us all a favor and stop defending the Church. You suck at it and you do more harm than good.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on February 15, 2012 at 2:36 PM

Note the following quote from the Mormon Journal of Discourses,

jfs756 on February 15, 2012 at 2:02 PM

I asked for “official” sources. Why can’t you provide an “official” source?

Gunlock Bill on February 15, 2012 at 3:24 PM

I would implore Mormons to honestly and openly examine their teachings about God and Jesus Christ and examine who the Bible defines as being a Christian. There is no benefit in calling yourself a “Christian” when Biblically you are not.

jfs756 on February 15, 2012 at 2:09 PM

Been there, done that.

Your problem is that the Bible doesn’t define what it is to be a “Christian”. If you think it does, please feel free to provide chapter and verse.

Gunlock Bill on February 15, 2012 at 3:28 PM

So, we have a guy in the White House that pretends to use the Bible. You’re telling us to be afraid of a guy who might actually use the Bible. You would like us to choose a guy who has a special Bible that you swear he won’t use. We are gaining how?

SurferDoc on February 15, 2012 at 10:30 AM

I suppose the King James Version of the Bible IS special. I don’t see that as a problem. Do you?

Gunlock Bill on February 15, 2012 at 1:45 PM

Say, Gunlock Bill, how’s the vocabulary work coming along? I know how hard it is for you to continue to type “bigot,” and “moron,” and “racist,” et al., on a daily basis! I realize how tough that must be to come up with more ways to describe people who don’t adhere to your anti-Christian viewpoints…. :)

jfs756 on February 15, 2012 at 2:00 PM

Non sequitur.

Gunlock Bill on February 15, 2012 at 3:31 PM

Mormons teach that Jesus Christ suffered for sin in the Garden of Gethsemane when He sweat “as it were” great drops of blood. Mormons totally avoid the Biblical teaching of Christ’s atonement for sin which was accomplished on the Cross.

Note the following quote from, “What Mormons Think of Christ” (LDS publication, pages 32-34):

jfs756 on February 15, 2012 at 2:04 PM

Mormon’s do not avoid the Biblical teaching of Christ’s atonement for sin. We just believe that the Cross was incomplete without Gethsemane, and Gethsemane incomplete without the Cross. Both the Cross and Gethsemane required to accomplish his divine mission.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on February 15, 2012 at 3:34 PM

I would implore Mormons to honestly and openly examine their teachings about God and Jesus Christ and examine who the Bible defines as being a Christian. There is no benefit in calling yourself a “Christian” when Biblically you are not.

jfs756 on February 15, 2012 at 2:09 PM
Been there, done that.

Your problem is that the Bible doesn’t define what it is to be a “Christian”. If you think it does, please feel free to provide chapter and verse.

Gunlock Bill on February 15, 2012 at 3:28 PM

The name Christian was first used, as Acts 11:26 records, to identify the disciples of Jesus Christ. The word “Christian” is the Greek word, “christianos” and it means an adherent of Jesus Christ. It literally means “Christ ones.” (Acts 11:26, 26:28, 1 Peter 4:16) The correct definition of the word is one who is a follower of the Jesus Christ of the Bible. Never in two thousand years has the word “Christian” had any other meaning or reference to anyone other than the historical Jesus Christ of the New Testament.

jfs756 on February 15, 2012 at 3:44 PM

Apparently the Mormon Church also teaches LYING, CHEATING, and CHEATING, similarly to Ob@st@rd’s Rev. Wright. RINO Romney’s attack ads in Florida and Iowa were LOADED with blatant LIES about Gingrich (see “What Really Happened to the Gingrich Ethics Case” By Byron York at Townhall.com 2/6/2012). And JUST THIS MORNING ON NATIONAL TV, Willard (from the RAT movie of the same name) LIED about Santorum being the quintescential “Lobbyist!?!” What a freakin’ LIAR!?! It’s beginning to look like RINO Romney is truly beginning to believe his OWN LIES!! Florida and Iowa were made to look really STUPID because of Willard’s LIES!?! One can only hope that Michigan, Arizona, and Ohio wake up to the abject LIES propagated by RINO Romney’s campaign and SURROGATES (which appear to include Axelrod)!! If not, the COMPLICIT RepublicRAT establishment ( RINOs in DC who have long over-stayed their usefulness and/or welcome) will have succeeded in replacing this J@ck@ss LIAR-In-Chief with the (R) version!?! Nice goin’, STUPID Party!!!

Colatteral Damage on February 15, 2012 at 3:51 PM

Oh, BTW, electability MY @SS!!!

Colatteral Damage on February 15, 2012 at 3:53 PM

Note the following quote from the Mormon Journal of Discourses,

jfs756 on February 15, 2012 at 2:02 PM
I asked for “official” sources. Why can’t you provide an “official” source?

Gunlock Bill on February 15, 2012 at 3:24 PM

Mormons insist they are Christians but just not by our definition. They say they believe in Jesus because the name of their church is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

However, if they believe in Jesus, they would certainly believe in what Jesus Christ taught.

Check and see whether Jesus taught any of the following Mormon beliefs in the Bible:

1. The plurality of Gods (Mormon Doctrine pp. 576, 577)

2. The baptism for the dead done in holy temples (Mormon Doctrine pp. 72,73)

3. Celestial marriage which no unworthy member or outsider can attend (Mormon Doctrine pp. 117, 118)

4. Polygamy needed to become a God (Journal of Discourse, Vol. II p. 269)

5. Blacks were cursed with a dark skin (Mormon Doctrine p. 109)

6. You can become a God if you are worthy; celestial marriage required (Mormon Doctrine p. 118)

7. We were all pre-existent spirits (Mormon Doctrine p. 589)

8. God has a body of flesh and bones (Mormon Doctrine p. 289)

9. We have a Heavenly Mother as well as a Heavenly Father (Mormon Doctrine p. 516)

10. There are three levels of heaven. To go to the highest kingdom, you must be a Mormon. Honorable persons go to the Terrestrial kingdom. The dishonest, liars, sorcerers, adulterers and whoremongers go to the Telestial kingdom . (Mormon Doctrine pp. 420, 421)

11. God and his wife achieved a celestial marriage (Celestial Marriage Manual p. 1)

12. Heavenly Father died just like Jesus (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith p. 346)

13. God was once just like us and progressed to godhood (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith p. 345)

14. God has a father and His Father has a Father, etc. (Mormon Doctrine p. 322)

15. Jesus and Lucifer are spirit brothers (Mormon Doctrine p. 192)

16. Jesus and Lucifer each had a plan to people the earth. Jesus’ plan was chosen and caused Lucifer to rebel and he and the angels that followed him were cast out of heaven. (Mormon Doctrine p. 193)

17. God lives near a star called Kolob (Mormon Doctrine p. 428)

18. Temple endowments are so sacred that you must be worthy to enter (Mormon Doctrine pp. 619, 620)

19. Jesus was not able to keep his church together (History of the Church Vol. 6 pp. 408, 409)

20. In the future, you will need Joseph Smith’s consent in order to enter the celestial kingdom (Journal of Discourse Vol. 7 p.289)

21. Not everything you’ll need to know concerning salvation will be recorded in the Bible but there will be additional scriptures (Mormon Doctrine p. 83)

jfs756 on February 15, 2012 at 3:55 PM

Never in two thousand years has the word “Christian” had any other meaning or reference to anyone other than the historical Jesus Christ of the New Testament.

jfs756 on February 15, 2012 at 3:44 PM

And Guess what… Mormon’s believe in the same historical Jesus Christ from the Bible.

1 We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on February 15, 2012 at 3:57 PM

jfs756 on February 15, 2012 at 3:55 PM

Mormon Doctrine better known as “McConkie Doctrine” is not an official Mormon source. It is not canon and not revered as scripture. It contains many errors.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on February 15, 2012 at 4:01 PM

jfs756 on February 15, 2012 at 3:55 PM

Still waiting for “official” sources. Also links to those sources would be nice.

ALL “official” LDS sources ARE AVAILABLE ONLINE!!

So, ONE MORE TIME, can you provide “official” sources or not?

Gunlock Bill on February 15, 2012 at 4:03 PM

The name Christian was first used, as Acts 11:26 records, to identify the disciples of Jesus Christ. The word “Christian” is the Greek word, “christianos” and it means an adherent of Jesus Christ. It literally means “Christ ones.” (Acts 11:26, 26:28, 1 Peter 4:16)

So far, so good, but then you fall off the DEEP end with this crap.

The correct definition of the word is one who is a follower of the Jesus Christ of the Bible.

Here is a clue for you.

There is ONLY ONE Jesus Christ.

And the Bible, itself, doesn’t claim to be exclusive to information about Christ.
John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

Never in two thousand years has the word “Christian” had any other meaning or reference to anyone other than the historical Jesus Christ of the New Testament.

jfs756 on February 15, 2012 at 3:44 PM

Here is a clue for you.

There is ONLY ONE Jesus Christ.

And the New Testament, itself, doesn’t claim to be exclusive to information about Christ.
John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

Gunlock Bill on February 15, 2012 at 4:11 PM

jfs756 on February 15, 2012 at 3:55 PM

Nice cut and paste job from an OBVIOUS ANTI-Mormon/HATES Mormon source.

Why would anyone trust an ANTI-Mormon/HATE Mormon source for a truthful representation of Mormon beliefs?

Gunlock Bill on February 15, 2012 at 4:16 PM

Still waiting for “official” sources. Also links to those sources would be nice.

ALL “official” LDS sources ARE AVAILABLE ONLINE!!

So, ONE MORE TIME, can you provide “official” sources or not?

Gunlock Bill on February 15, 2012 at 4:03 PM

On the topic of Jesus:

LDS – An insufficient Savior: “Man may commit certain grievous sins-according to his light and knowledge-that will place him beyond the reach of the atoning blood of Christ. If then he would be saved, he must make sacrifice of his own life to atone-so far as in his power lies-for that sin, for the blood of Christ alone under certain circumstances will not avail.” (Pg.93) (Additional documentation: “Doctrines of Salvation”, Vol.1, Pgs.133-134; “What the Mormons Think of Christ”, Pg.19-20)

The spirit-brother of Lucifer (Pgs.164, 192-193). Also – “The appointment of Jesus to be the Savior of the world was contested by one of the other sons of God. He was called Lucifer…this spirit-brother of Jesus desperately tried to become the Savior of mankind.” (“The Gospel Through the Ages” by Milton R. Hunter, Pg.15)

Became “a God” by obedience: “By obedience and devotion to the truth he attained that pinnacle of intelligence which ranked him as a God, as the Lord Omnipotent, while yet in his pre-existent state.” (Pg.129) (Additional documentation: “The Gospel Through the Ages”, Milton R. Hunter, Pg.51)

BIBLE – The blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sin: “But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.” (1 John 1:7; also see Rom.5:8-9, Titus 2:14, Heb.9:14, etc.)

Jesus created Lucifer so he could not have been his brother: “For by him [Jesus] were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him.” (Col.1:16; also see John 1:3)

He has always been God (Ps.90:1-2; John 1:1; Phil.2:5-7; Col.2:9; Heb.13:8, etc.). Obviously, the Jesus of Mormonism is not the Jesus of Christianity. The Apostle Paul feared that some would be taken in those who preached “another Jesus”: “But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.” (2 Cor.11:3-4)

jfs756 on February 15, 2012 at 4:18 PM

1. The plurality of Gods (Mormon Doctrine pp. 576, 577)

2. The baptism for the dead done in holy temples (Mormon Doctrine pp. 72,73)

1 Cor 15:29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

3. Celestial marriage which no unworthy member or outsider can attend (Mormon Doctrine pp. 117, 118)

4. Polygamy needed to become a God (Journal of Discourse, Vol. II p. 269)

False, this is not doctrine.

5. Blacks were cursed with a dark skin (Mormon Doctrine p. 109)

Many people have assumed that the mark that was put on Cain was a dark skin.

Genesis 4:15 And the Lord said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.

I do not believe this is doctrine.

6. You can become a God if you are worthy; celestial marriage required (Mormon Doctrine p. 118)

7. We were all pre-existent spirits (Mormon Doctrine p. 589)

8. God has a body of flesh and bones (Mormon Doctrine p. 289)

9. We have a Heavenly Mother as well as a Heavenly Father (Mormon Doctrine p. 516)

10. There are three levels of heaven. To go to the highest kingdom, you must be a Mormon. Honorable persons go to the Terrestrial kingdom. The dishonest, liars, sorcerers, adulterers and whoremongers go to the Telestial kingdom . (Mormon Doctrine pp. 420, 421)

This shouldn’t be a surprise as most religions believe you have to be a member of their particular group to be “saved”.

11. God and his wife achieved a celestial marriage (Celestial Marriage Manual p. 1)

12. Heavenly Father died just like Jesus (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith p. 346)

False. This is not doctrine. We believe that God the Father had a body, but there it nothing said about how God the Father died.

13. God was once just like us and progressed to godhood (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith p. 345)

14. God has a father and His Father has a Father, etc. (Mormon Doctrine p. 322)

This is theorized, but is not known. It is not doctrine.

15. Jesus and Lucifer are spirit brothers (Mormon Doctrine p. 192)

Brothers in the same sense that everyone is descended from Adam; and that we are all the literal offspring of God.

16. Jesus and Lucifer each had a plan to people the earth. Jesus’ plan was chosen and caused Lucifer to rebel and he and the angels that followed him were cast out of heaven. (Mormon Doctrine p. 193)

17. God lives near a star called Kolob (Mormon Doctrine p. 428)

Lived, not lives.

18. Temple endowments are so sacred that you must be worthy to enter (Mormon Doctrine pp. 619, 620)

19. Jesus was not able to keep his church together (History of the Church Vol. 6 pp. 408, 409)

2nd Tess 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

20. In the future, you will need Joseph Smith’s consent in order to enter the celestial kingdom (Journal of Discourse Vol. 7 p.289)

False. No such doctrine.

21. Not everything you’ll need to know concerning salvation will be recorded in the Bible but there will be additional scriptures (Mormon Doctrine p. 83)

8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

Mormon’s do not believe that any man is infallible. The Pope may be infallible, but I don’t even think that most Catholics actually believe that. A Mormon Prophet does not have to be infallible and I don’t know of a single one that is. Many have spouted opinions (Such as Brigham Young) at one point which have lead to some embarrassment now in more modern times. We do not believe those statements were binding upon the Church and treat them as “opinion” and not as doctrine.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on February 15, 2012 at 4:19 PM

jfs756 on February 15, 2012 at 4:18 PM

I’ll make this simple, if you can’t find it on LDS.ORG it isn’t official…

Try again…

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on February 15, 2012 at 4:25 PM

jfs756 on February 15, 2012 at 4:18 PM
I’ll make this simple, if you can’t find it on LDS.ORG it isn’t official…

Try again…

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on February 15, 2012 at 4:25 PM

So, my Mormon friend, tell me. Do you consider your church to represent “a system of religious belief and worship”? Do you engage in “worship”?

jfs756 on February 15, 2012 at 4:28 PM

So, my Mormon friend, tell me. Do you consider your church to represent “a system of religious belief and worship”? Do you engage in “worship”?

jfs756 on February 15, 2012 at 4:28 PM

Of course.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on February 15, 2012 at 4:30 PM

Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913 + 1828)
Displaying 1 result(s) from the 1913 edition:

——————————————————————————–
Cult (Page: 355)
Cult (k?lt) n .[F. culte, L. cultus care, culture, fr. colere to cultivate. Cf. Cultus.]

1. Attentive care; homage; worship.

Every one is convinced of the reality of a better self, and of the cult or homage which is due to it. Shaftesbury.
2. A system of religious belief and worship.

That which was the religion of Moses is the ceremonial or cult of the religion of Christ. Coleridge.

jfs756 on February 15, 2012 at 4:30 PM

And the New Testament, itself, doesn’t claim to be exclusive to information about Christ.
John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
Gunlock Bill on February 15, 2012 at 4:11 PM

I have an addition to that, ‘Bill, but not a criticism:

As there maybe/is other documentation about Jesus, it’s important to remember that any other such document should not contradict anything in the Holy Bible.
If you’re reading any literature that is supposed to represent the life of Jesus and Will of God, and you come across something that appears to, or maybe blatantly contradicts the Holy Bible, then every alarm bell, buzzer, siren, or flashing light in your head should go off immediately.
That’s all.

listens2glenn on February 15, 2012 at 4:31 PM

jfs756 on February 15, 2012 at 4:30 PM

By that definition all Religions are Cults.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on February 15, 2012 at 4:31 PM

So, my Mormon friend, tell me. Do you consider your church to represent “a system of religious belief and worship”? Do you engage in “worship”?

jfs756 on February 15, 2012 at 4:28 PM
Of course.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on February 15, 2012 at 4:30 PM

DO YOU REALIZE THAT “A SYSTEM OF RELIGIOUS BELIEF AND WORSHIP” IS PRECISELY WHAT WEBSTER’S DICTIONARY DEFINES AS A CULT? DOESN’T THAT PROVE THAT MORMONISM IS, BY A FAIR AND OBJECTIVE SCHOLARLY STANDARD, ACTUALLY A CULT?

jfs756 on February 15, 2012 at 4:32 PM

DO YOU REALIZE THAT “A SYSTEM OF RELIGIOUS BELIEF AND WORSHIP” IS PRECISELY WHAT WEBSTER’S DICTIONARY DEFINES AS A CULT? DOESN’T THAT PROVE THAT MORMONISM IS, BY A FAIR AND OBJECTIVE SCHOLARLY STANDARD, ACTUALLY A CULT?

jfs756 on February 15, 2012 at 4:32 PM

As I said before, by that definition, all religions are cults.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on February 15, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Oh, look more UN-official cut and paste.

On the topic of Jesus:

LDS – An insufficient Savior: “Man may commit certain grievous sins-according to his light and knowledge-that will place him beyond the reach of the atoning blood of Christ. If then he would be saved, he must make sacrifice of his own life to atone-so far as in his power lies-for that sin, for the blood of Christ alone under certain circumstances will not avail.” (Pg.93) (Additional documentation: “Doctrines of Salvation”, Vol.1, Pgs.133-134; “What the Mormons Think of Christ”, Pg.19-20)

Even Jesus admitted that some acts place you beyond salvation.
Matt. 12:31 ¶ Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

Did Jesus get it wrong?

And John said,
1 Jn. 3:15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.

Did John get it wrong too?

The spirit-brother of Lucifer (Pgs.164, 192-193). Also – “The appointment of Jesus to be the Savior of the world was contested by one of the other sons of God. He was called Lucifer…this spirit-brother of Jesus desperately tried to become the Savior of mankind.” (“The Gospel Through the Ages” by Milton R. Hunter, Pg.15)

YUP!!
Satan was a son of god.

Job 1:6 ¶ Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.

Job 2:1 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the Lord.

Was Job wrong on that?

Became “a God” by obedience: “By obedience and devotion to the truth he attained that pinnacle of intelligence which ranked him as a God, as the Lord Omnipotent, while yet in his pre-existent state.” (Pg.129) (Additional documentation: “The Gospel Through the Ages”, Milton R. Hunter, Pg.51)

jfs756 on February 15, 2012 at 4:18 PM

Rev 3:8 I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name.
9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

So, was Jesus wrong on this too?

Gunlock Bill on February 15, 2012 at 4:33 PM

1. The plurality of Gods (Mormon Doctrine pp. 576, 577)

The Bible teaches the plurality of gods.

Josh. 22:22 The Lord God of gods, the Lord God of gods, he knoweth, and Israel he shall know; if it be in rebellion, or if in transgression against the Lord, (save us not this day,)

Deut. 10:17 For the Lord your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:

Ps. 136:2 O give thanks unto the God of gods: for his mercy endureth for ever.

Dan. 2:47 The king answered unto Daniel, and said, Of a truth it is, that your God is a God of gods, and a Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets, seeing thou couldest reveal this secret.

Dan. 11:36 And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.

So these other gods worship God. So, does that make them false gods or true gods?

Gunlock Bill on February 15, 2012 at 4:37 PM

DO YOU REALIZE THAT “A SYSTEM OF RELIGIOUS BELIEF AND WORSHIP” IS PRECISELY WHAT WEBSTER’S DICTIONARY DEFINES AS A CULT? DOESN’T THAT PROVE THAT MORMONISM IS, BY A FAIR AND OBJECTIVE SCHOLARLY STANDARD, ACTUALLY A CULT?

jfs756 on February 15, 2012 at 4:32 PM
As I said before, by that definition, all religions are cults.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on February 15, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Hmmm. Well, did you know that even apologists like Daniel C. Peterson, Hugh Nibley, John Tvedtnes, and Kerry Shirts all agree with the conclusion you just came to? Honestly, there’s no escaping the truth!

jfs756 on February 15, 2012 at 4:38 PM

Hmmm. Well, did you know that even apologists like Daniel C. Peterson, Hugh Nibley, John Tvedtnes, and Kerry Shirts all agree with the conclusion you just came to? Honestly, there’s no escaping the truth!

jfs756 on February 15, 2012 at 4:38 PM

So then you agree that you are a member of a cult?

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on February 15, 2012 at 4:40 PM

Christianity is a CULT!

1. a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies.

2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.

3. the object of such devotion.

4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.

5. Sociology . a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cult

Gunlock Bill on February 15, 2012 at 4:42 PM

jfs756, Gunlock Bill,

How about we just agree that the word “Cult” is meaningless and only good for throwing around negative connotations. It would us all well to just remove the word from our vocabulary as it is so broadly defined as to mean every group of religious people on the planet.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on February 15, 2012 at 4:48 PM

Here’s a few links to get your started on obtaining a more accurate understanding of what Mormons actually believe.

I have found that the vast majority of the “issues” brought up can be found and addressed at http://www.fairlds.org/ but here’s more:

http://scriptures.lds.org/
http://www.lds.org
http://www.fairlds.org/
http://www.mormonapologetics.org/
http://www.mormonwiki.com/Main_Page
http://www.lightplanet.com/response/index.html
http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDS_Intro.shtml
http://www.answeringantimormons.com/index.htm
http://promormon.blogspot.com/

Gunlock Bill on February 15, 2012 at 4:49 PM

How about we just agree that the word “Cult” is meaningless and only good for throwing around negative connotations. It would us all well to just remove the word from our vocabulary as it is so broadly defined as to mean every group of religious people on the planet.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on February 15, 2012 at 4:48 PM

The real purpose for its MIS-use here is to offend and insult.

Gunlock Bill on February 15, 2012 at 4:52 PM

Here’s a few links to get your started on obtaining a more accurate understanding of what Mormons actually believe.

Gunlock Bill on February 15, 2012 at 4:49 PM

I prefer the Gospel Principals Manual. It’s a good basic over view of the church, and taught to all new members.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on February 15, 2012 at 4:58 PM

IndeCon on February 15, 2012 at 11:47 AM
Question. Who do you think is conservative in the race?

hawkdriver on February 15, 2012 at 12:18 PM

Oh, I think Santorum is a social conservative. Unfortunately, he’s been quite liberal fiscally.

IndeCon on February 15, 2012 at 11:47 AM
PS, you’ve really mischaracterized a lot of that legislative voting. The legislation itself in some cases.

hawkdriver on February 15, 2012 at 12:23 PM

How so?

Rick voted against the National Right to Work Act of 1995

Measure Number: S. 1788 (National Right to Work Act of 1995 )
Measure Title: A bill to amend the National Labor Relations Act and the Railway Labor Act to repeal those provisions of Federal law that require employees to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment, and for other purposes.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=2&vote=00188

Rick voted for HR 3448 Minimum Wage Increase bill

voted for Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which imposes job-killing federal regulations on businesses

for CAFTA, which removes duties on textile and apparel goods traded among participating nations, resulting in nearly all textile companies leaving the South

for taxes in the Internet Access Tax Bill

Stating the facts of Rick’s voting record might not be to your liking, but that’s what vetting is all about. Santorum needs the same scrutiny all the other candidates have had to endure.

IndeCon on February 15, 2012 at 5:13 PM

Stating the facts of Rick’s voting record might not be to your liking, but that’s what vetting is all about. Santorum needs the same scrutiny all the other candidates have had to endure.

IndeCon on February 15, 2012 at 5:13 PM

That’s right. Before this is over, every one of us should be able to name every professional lobbyist working on Team Romney.

Face it, as imperfect as Santorum is, right now he’s the 2008 Romney to Romney’s 2008 McCain…and Santorum’s doing better than Romney did in 2008. Mitt is plummeting in the polls. The “electability” veneer can’t be maintained much longer.

ddrintn on February 15, 2012 at 5:29 PM

IndeCon on February 15, 2012 at 5:13 PM

Yep, and he has quite a bit of COnservative legislation under his belt too. But it’s obvious not one candidate is the perfect conservative. My question was who you think is more conservative.

hawkdriver on February 15, 2012 at 6:59 PM

Cult (Page: 355)
Cult (k?lt) n .[F. culte, L. cultus care, culture, fr. colere to cultivate. Cf. Cultus.]

1. Attentive care; homage; worship.

Every one is convinced of the reality of a better self, and of the cult or homage which is due to it. Shaftesbury.
2. A system of religious belief and worship.

That which was the religion of Moses is the ceremonial or cult of the religion of Christ. Coleridge.

jfs756 on February 15, 2012 at 4:30 PM

In the opinion of Benjamin Zablacki, a professor of Sociology at Rutgers University, groups that have been characterized as cults are at high risk of becoming abusive to members. He states that this is in part due to members’ adulation of charismatic leaders contributing to the leaders becoming corrupted by power. Zablocki defines a cult as an ideological organization held together by charismatic relationships and the demand of total commitment.[23] According to Barrett, the most common accusation made against groups referred to as cults is sexual abuse (See some allegations made by former members). According to Kranenborg, some groups are risky when they advise their members not to use regular medical care.[24]

This does not sound unlike Obama and Democrats mindset and behavior. Thus, secular cults.

DevilsPrinciple on February 15, 2012 at 9:09 PM

How about we just agree that the word “Cult” is meaningless and only good for throwing around negative connotations.
E L Frederick (Sniper One) on February 15, 2012 at 4:48 PM

The real purpose for its MIS-use here is to offend and insult.
Gunlock Bill on February 15, 2012 at 4:52 PM

.
You cultist.

listens2glenn on February 15, 2012 at 9:11 PM

DevilsPrinciple on February 15, 2012 at 9:09 PM

WOW. I reread that a couple times.
Very articulately and eloquently defines the differences, that we’ve had so much debate over.
.
Thanks for posting! : )

listens2glenn on February 15, 2012 at 9:17 PM

listens2glenn on February 15, 2012 at 9:17 PM

My pleasure

DevilsPrinciple on February 15, 2012 at 9:39 PM

You cultist.

listens2glenn on February 15, 2012 at 9:11 PM

That’s pretty funny coming from a Beck cultist.

Gunlock Bill on February 16, 2012 at 9:48 AM

You cultist.
listens2glenn on February 15, 2012 at 9:11 PM

That’s pretty funny coming from a Beck cultist.
Gunlock Bill on February 16, 2012 at 9:48 AM

.
Aw that’s IT . . . . I’m TELLING . . . . .
.
ED . . . ALLAH’, . . .

Gunlock Bill is picking on me . . . . . . . he called me a ‘Beck cultist’ . . . and EVERYTHING !

listens2glenn on February 16, 2012 at 11:14 AM

Comment pages: 1 8 9 10