Romney 2012?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
221

The Republicans hooking up with the religious right was a way to get votes from the Southern Democrats, and it worked. There’s a reason why they call the South the Bible Belt.

The South had historically voted Democrat as a vestige of the Civil War days: recall that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican. But many of these Southern Democrats were socially conservative.

In came Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority and flipped the Southern Democrats to Republicans solely on the social issues. Ellie Mae and Aunt Fannie may not know much about them economics stuff, and fiscal is somethin’ you get at the doctor’s office, but by golly they know that God didn’t want no gays gettin’ married and they’re a gonna put a stop to that.

And before Southerners take offense, I grew up in the South. I knew some smart people, but I also knew a lot of rednecks. Ellie Mae and Aunt Fannie exist and they have the right to vote even though they can barely spell the words “economics” and “fiscal.”

I’d vote Libertarian if I thought the Libertarians had a snowball’s chance.

222

Anyways, everyone in the know understands Huckabee will be the party favorite on the next go around.

223

Uh, riiiight . . . holding my breath for that one. Four years from now is a long time.

If he does, I’m out (again).

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Anyways, everyone in the know understands Huckabee will be the party favorite on the next go around.[/quote]

224

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Anyways, everyone in the know understands Huckabee will be the party favorite on the next go around.[/quote]

I think he should be the party favorite. I doubt he will be though. Look at how the GOP’s mouthpieces (National Review, Wall Street Journal, etc.) jumped all over him for relatively minor deviations on free trade and government spending. He ran his campaign with no money and no movement support. It’s a testament to the man’s political skill that he got as far as he did.

225

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Anyways, everyone in the know understands Huckabee will be the party favorite on the next go around.

I think he should be the party favorite. I doubt he will be though. Look at how the GOP’s mouthpieces (National Review, Wall Street Journal, etc.) jumped all over him for relatively minor deviations on free trade and government spending. He ran his campaign with no money and no movement support. It’s a testament to the man’s political skill that he got as far as he did.[/quote]

The man is charismatic and that is huge to winning elections.

226

Good post, “Pro-Lifers Are Not The Problem”:

http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/11/10/pro-lifers-are-not-the-problem/

227

[quote]skaz05 wrote:
I predict a Hillary Clinton vs Sarah Palin fiasco in 2012. Total cat fight.

Should be entertaining![/quote]

Do you mean competing for the nomination for a new party? The vagina ticket?
You think Obama is going away after 4, that he’ll walk away?
Obama will probably get re-elected. Incumbents usually do.

228

[quote]Gael wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
pookie wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Obama is as big a moron as the rest of them.

And O’Reilly himself following the interview referred to Obama as “very smart” and “highly intelligent.” [/quote]

and the point is what? The statement was that Obama is as big a moron as the rest of them, and I believe it is true. I also believe he is not a moron.

Obama ran a terrific campaign. McCain ran an abysmal campaign.
Palin most likely will never be elected president. Why? Most people aren’t.

There have only been what, 39 different people that have been elected president in our history?
Republicans are not conservative any longer. Ronny and JFK are both rolling their eyes from above at what has happened to their respective parties.

229

They become a problem when they start using that as THE litmus test for whom they will vote, throwing away the importance of all other issues, and thus electing utter dumb fucks, STRICTLY because they’re pro-life.

Also, let’s not forget that the pro-lifers are a MINORITY in the country as a whole.

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Good post, “Pro-Lifers Are Not The Problem”:

http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/11/10/pro-lifers-are-not-the-problem/

[/quote]

230

[quote]Damici wrote:
They become a problem when they start using that as THE litmus test for whom they will vote, throwing away the importance of all other issues, and thus electing utter dumb fucks, STRICTLY because they’re pro-life.

Also, let’s not forget that the pro-lifers are a MINORITY in the country as a whole.

GDollars37 wrote:
Good post, “Pro-Lifers Are Not The Problem”:

http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/11/10/pro-lifers-are-not-the-problem/
[/quote]

Agree to some extent. I probably will never vote for a pro-choice presidential candidate, barring some huge, glaring reason to do so (the test being, as a Catholic bishop said recently, whether you could justify that vote to aborted children you would meet in heaven). But I will also not be held captive by the GOP on the abortion issue, an issue they only pay lip service to 95% of the time. Solution: third party vote, which is what I did this year (Constitution Party).

231

[quote]Damici wrote:
Mitt also believers in magic underpants. (No kidding – Google magic underpants). And Mitt belongs to a cult religion that, until the 50’s or 60’s, strictly forbade interracial marriage because it considered blacks to be lesser human beings.

He’s out.[/quote]

He’s not out. This issue was already debated in the primaries. The consensus was that, if America can elect a black man or a woman to office, then it can elect a Mormon.

232

Not if the opposition (whoever that is) is ballsy enough to point out the absolute zaniness that is Mormonism.

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Damici wrote:
Mitt also believers in magic underpants. (No kidding – Google magic underpants). And Mitt belongs to a cult religion that, until the 50’s or 60’s, strictly forbade interracial marriage because it considered blacks to be lesser human beings.

He’s out.

He’s not out. This issue was already debated in the primaries. The consensus was that, if America can elect a black man or a woman to office, then it can elect a Mormon.

[/quote]

233

Because pointing out the zaniness of Obama’s church worked out so well in this last election?

[quote]Damici wrote:
Not if the opposition (whoever that is) is ballsy enough to point out the absolute zaniness that is Mormonism.

Nominal Prospect wrote:
Damici wrote:
Mitt also believers in magic underpants. (No kidding – Google magic underpants). And Mitt belongs to a cult religion that, until the 50’s or 60’s, strictly forbade interracial marriage because it considered blacks to be lesser human beings.

He’s out.

He’s not out. This issue was already debated in the primaries. The consensus was that, if America can elect a black man or a woman to office, then it can elect a Mormon.

[/quote]

234

[quote]Christine wrote:
Because pointing out the zaniness of Obama’s church worked out so well in this last election?

Damici wrote:
Not if the opposition (whoever that is) is ballsy enough to point out the absolute zaniness that is Mormonism.

Nominal Prospect wrote:
Damici wrote:
Mitt also believers in magic underpants. (No kidding – Google magic underpants). And Mitt belongs to a cult religion that, until the 50’s or 60’s, strictly forbade interracial marriage because it considered blacks to be lesser human beings.

He’s out.

He’s not out. This issue was already debated in the primaries. The consensus was that, if America can elect a black man or a woman to office, then it can elect a Mormon.

[/quote]

Where have you been? Obama could have admitted he shot and killed someone on national TV and his zombies would have voted for him.

235

In this election I don’t think much of anything would’ve changed anything in the Republicans’ favor. Having a preacher with radical anti-white views is reprehensible, yes, but it’s different than being just BAT-SHIT ZANY, believing in things like magic underpants. I mean, Scientology is even zanier, but that’s the only one off the top of my head that’s zanier.

Would you want a president who literally believes in magic underpants? (Rhetorical question).

And by the way, yes, everyone has the right to believe in whatever zany shit they want, and the Bible has some crazy shit in there too, but the Bible is MUCH more accepted in this country/society (loosely speaking anyway, by the great majority), whereas Mormonism is not. So this kind of info will be new to the general public, and will strike most as absolutely bat-shit crazy.

Which is fine. It is.

[quote]Christine wrote:
Because pointing out the zaniness of Obama’s church worked out so well in this last election?

Damici wrote:
Not if the opposition (whoever that is) is ballsy enough to point out the absolute zaniness that is Mormonism.

Nominal Prospect wrote:
Damici wrote:
Mitt also believers in magic underpants. (No kidding – Google magic underpants). And Mitt belongs to a cult religion that, until the 50’s or 60’s, strictly forbade interracial marriage because it considered blacks to be lesser human beings.

He’s out.

He’s not out. This issue was already debated in the primaries. The consensus was that, if America can elect a black man or a woman to office, then it can elect a Mormon.

[/quote]

236

I honestly don’t see it as any zanier than believing in a talking snake.

I really don’t care what religion someone is, so long as they don’t use their beliefs as a basis for governing how I should live my life.

[quote]Damici wrote:
In this election I don’t think much of anything would’ve changed anything in the Republicans’ favor. Having a preacher with radical anti-white views is reprehensible, yes, but it’s different than being just BAT-SHIT ZANY, believing in things like magic underpants. I mean, Scientology is even zanier, but that’s the only one off the top of my head that’s zanier.

Would you want a president who literally believes in magic underpants? (Rhetorical question).

And by the way, yes, everyone has the right to believe in whatever zany shit they want, and the Bible has some crazy shit in there too, but the Bible is MUCH more accepted in this country/society (loosely speaking anyway, by the great majority), whereas Mormonism is not. So this kind of info will be new to the general public, and will strike most as absolutely bat-shit crazy.

Which is fine. It is.

Christine wrote:
Because pointing out the zaniness of Obama’s church worked out so well in this last election?

Damici wrote:
Not if the opposition (whoever that is) is ballsy enough to point out the absolute zaniness that is Mormonism.

Nominal Prospect wrote:
Damici wrote:
Mitt also believers in magic underpants. (No kidding – Google magic underpants). And Mitt belongs to a cult religion that, until the 50’s or 60’s, strictly forbade interracial marriage because it considered blacks to be lesser human beings.

He’s out.

He’s not out. This issue was already debated in the primaries. The consensus was that, if America can elect a black man or a woman to office, then it can elect a Mormon.

[/quote]

237

I guess I don’t see it as any zanier than the talking snake either, BUT, as I mentioned, it won’t go over as well with the overall American public as the talking snake, because the average American is very familiar with Christianity but completely unfamiliar with Mormonism. So “their” zany beliefs will seem truly zany/scary, whereas “our own” zany beliefs have been around for thousands of years and everyone takes them for granted.

I agree with the last thing you said to a degree – the problem arises in that most of those candidates nowadays who have fundamentalist Christian beliefs insist on wearing it on their sleeves, ramming it down our throats AND using it as a basis for governing. W. himself said that his religious beliefs influence his foreign policy!! (You can probably find the video online somewhere). * THAT’S * SCARY.*

[quote]Christine wrote:
I honestly don’t see it as any zanier than believing in a talking snake.

I really don’t care what religion someone is, so long as they don’t use their beliefs as a basis for governing how I should live my life.

Damici wrote:
In this election I don’t think much of anything would’ve changed anything in the Republicans’ favor. Having a preacher with radical anti-white views is reprehensible, yes, but it’s different than being just BAT-SHIT ZANY, believing in things like magic underpants. I mean, Scientology is even zanier, but that’s the only one off the top of my head that’s zanier.

Would you want a president who literally believes in magic underpants? (Rhetorical question).

And by the way, yes, everyone has the right to believe in whatever zany shit they want, and the Bible has some crazy shit in there too, but the Bible is MUCH more accepted in this country/society (loosely speaking anyway, by the great majority), whereas Mormonism is not. So this kind of info will be new to the general public, and will strike most as absolutely bat-shit crazy.

Which is fine. It is.

Christine wrote:
Because pointing out the zaniness of Obama’s church worked out so well in this last election?

Damici wrote:
Not if the opposition (whoever that is) is ballsy enough to point out the absolute zaniness that is Mormonism.

Nominal Prospect wrote:
Damici wrote:
Mitt also believers in magic underpants. (No kidding – Google magic underpants). And Mitt belongs to a cult religion that, until the 50’s or 60’s, strictly forbade interracial marriage because it considered blacks to be lesser human beings.

He’s out.

He’s not out. This issue was already debated in the primaries. The consensus was that, if America can elect a black man or a woman to office, then it can elect a Mormon.

[/quote]

238

I agree with you. I think that it is very difficult for the more fanatical to not govern by their faith.

[quote]Damici wrote:
I guess I don’t see it as any zanier than the talking snake either, BUT, as I mentioned, it won’t go over as well with the overall American public as the talking snake, because the average American is very familiar with Christianity but completely unfamiliar with Mormonism. So “their” zany beliefs will seem truly zany/scary, whereas “our own” zany beliefs have been around for thousands of years and everyone takes them for granted.

I agree with the last thing you said to a degree – the problem arises in that most of those candidates nowadays who have fundamentalist Christian beliefs insist on wearing it on their sleevea, ramming it down our throats AND using it as a basis for governing. W. himself said that his religious beliefs influence his foreign policy!! (You can probably find the video online somewhere). * THAT’S * SCARY.*

Christine wrote:
I honestly don’t see it as any zanier than believing in a talking snake.

I really don’t care what religion someone is, so long as they don’t use their beliefs as a basis for governing how I should live my life.

Damici wrote:
In this election I don’t think much of anything would’ve changed anything in the Republicans’ favor. Having a preacher with radical anti-white views is reprehensible, yes, but it’s different than being just BAT-SHIT ZANY, believing in things like magic underpants. I mean, Scientology is even zanier, but that’s the only one off the top of my head that’s zanier.

Would you want a president who literally believes in magic underpants? (Rhetorical question).

And by the way, yes, everyone has the right to believe in whatever zany shit they want, and the Bible has some crazy shit in there too, but the Bible is MUCH more accepted in this country/society (loosely speaking anyway, by the great majority), whereas Mormonism is not. So this kind of info will be new to the general public, and will strike most as absolutely bat-shit crazy.

Which is fine. It is.

Christine wrote:
Because pointing out the zaniness of Obama’s church worked out so well in this last election?

Damici wrote:
Not if the opposition (whoever that is) is ballsy enough to point out the absolute zaniness that is Mormonism.

Nominal Prospect wrote:
Damici wrote:
Mitt also believers in magic underpants. (No kidding – Google magic underpants). And Mitt belongs to a cult religion that, until the 50’s or 60’s, strictly forbade interracial marriage because it considered blacks to be lesser human beings.

He’s out.

He’s not out. This issue was already debated in the primaries. The consensus was that, if America can elect a black man or a woman to office, then it can elect a Mormon.

[/quote]

239

[quote]Damici wrote:
They become a problem when they start using that as THE litmus test for whom they will vote, throwing away the importance of all other issues, and thus electing utter dumb fucks, STRICTLY because they’re pro-life.[/quote]

You could make the same argument with any single issue group. gay rights, abortion, Social Security, Gun control - why cherry pick on one issue that happens to be held by a group you despise?

Here’s what I have noticed about you - you are as anti-religion as the people you revile are pro-religion. You are the other extreme of the religious right inside the conservative tent.

Not trying to start a fight, just making an observation.

[quote]Also, let’s not forget that the pro-lifers are a MINORITY in the country as a whole.
[/quote]

But not in the conservative movement. And not really in the country as a whole, either.

That’s like saying a majority of the country is for abortions in all circumstances.

Abortion should be a states rights issue - not a federal issue.

240

[quote]Christine wrote:
I agree with you. I think that it is very difficult for the more fanatical to not govern by their faith.
[/quote]

Can you clarify this? I have been around for quite sometime, and I have yet to live under a President who was a theocrat.

Should a leader not be led by his convictions? Should the President ignore his own moral compass to appease those who dislike the store he bought it from?

I have no problem with an atheist running the country. Why do the haters of anyone remotely acknowledging a higher power have such a problem with the opposite?

Can you name a single law that was passed which, in any way at all, forced you into a situation where you had to engage in a religious practice?