Just starting a RM oriented-thread as it appears Huntsman is dropping out and endorsing Romney.
Here's hoping that Romney nominates him as his VP. There'd be no stopping the Total Mormon Ticket.
I'm waiting for the accusations that Romney raped a unicorn, or used a public restroom at a gas station where an illegal alien once worked.
Quote from: Gaspar on January 16, 2012, 07:27:58 AM
I'm waiting for the accusations that Romney raped a unicorn, or used a public restroom at a gas station where an illegal alien once worked.
You heard that too, eh? Curious.
You sure it wasn't a willing pony?
I knew there had to be something about Romney that we just hadn't heard...
Quote from: AquaMan on January 16, 2012, 08:01:32 AM
You heard that too, eh? Curious.
You sure it wasn't a willing pony?
Hard to tell the slutty ponies from the virtuous unicorns these days.
At least in public restrooms that is.
I don't think he would rape a unicorn, he would just strap it to the roof of his car.
Of course he would. Better than a hood ornament.
Besides, its the other two, Gingrich and Santorum who are better candidates for the Notorious Idiot award. Can they share such honors?
Quote from: we vs us on January 15, 2012, 10:02:09 PM
Here's hoping that Romney nominates him as his VP. There'd be no stopping the Total Mormon Ticket.
I don't remember you identifying candidate Obama by his black separatist religion in '08.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 16, 2012, 09:03:06 AM
I don't remember you identifying candidate Obama by his black separatist religion in '08.
Er, what?
I should explain . . . I personally have no problems with my Mormon brothers, but acknowledge that lots of others -- primarily fundie Republicans -- do. This is why I think a Total Mormon Ticket would be so awesome. Think about it: a good lookin' pair of white guys, stupendously successful at business, smart in all (alright, most of) the right ways, upstandingly moral, clean cut . . . what's not to like? Other than their relatively secretive religion, of course. It would also be good because it would put the evangelicals back on their heels a bit. I'm always a fan of confronting folks with their own hypocrisies and a Total Mormon ticket would do just that.
It would never happen, of course. Mitt'll have to choose a veep from the other end of the GOP swimming pool to make it work with the majority of the caucus.
Quote from: we vs us on January 16, 2012, 09:16:55 AM
Er, what?
I should explain . . . I personally have no problems with my Mormon brothers, but acknowledge that lots of others -- primarily fundie Republicans -- do.
What do you base this on? Is someone on the right in the media or talk radio making a big deal about his religion?
Quote from: we vs us on January 16, 2012, 09:16:55 AM
Er, what?
I should explain . . . I personally have no problems with my Mormon brothers, but acknowledge that lots of others -- primarily fundie Republicans -- do. This is why I think a Total Mormon Ticket would be so awesome. Think about it: a good lookin' pair of white guys, stupendously successful at business, smart in all (alright, most of) the right ways, upstandingly moral, clean cut . . . what's not to like? Other than their relatively secretive religion, of course. It would also be good because it would put the evangelicals back on their heels a bit. I'm always a fan of confronting folks with their own hypocrisies and a Total Mormon ticket would do just that.
It would never happen, of course. Mitt'll have to choose a veep from the other end of the GOP swimming pool to make it work with the majority of the caucus.
I knew where you were going with that, just wanted to rattle your cage and see if you were fully awake yet.
Remember hearing what a revolution it was when JFK was elected as the first Roman Catholic? Oh the horror!
I hope Romney realizes he doesn't have to pick a fundie to win. The wing nuts on the far right will show up to vote against Obama regardless who the GOP candidate is. I think they'd almost vote for Aleister Crowley over President Obama. I'm sure there might be a very small fraction who won't be able to overcome their religious idiocy and would stay home.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 16, 2012, 09:30:45 AM
I'm sure there might be a very small fraction who won't be able to overcome their religious idiocy and would stay home.
Probably would stay home and listen to Glen Beck. . .wait . . .he's a Mormon too.
It's obviously a conspiracy.
Mormons are fine. I sure hope we don't ever have to consider a Scientologist though. That's where I draw the line.
Quote from: Gaspar on January 16, 2012, 09:28:01 AM
What do you base this on? Is someone on the right in the media or talk radio making a big deal about his religion?
I don't have an article I can point to but the strong sense I've gotten from reportage now and from his prior primary run was that his Mormonism is an issue, specifically with evangelicals. It's not hard to see. He's the most morally upstanding guy -- no mistresses, no divorce, one marriage, family values all the way down -- but a significant number of politically powerful evangelists just threw their weight behind Santorum for the SC primary and for the foreseeable future.
Quote from: we vs us on January 16, 2012, 10:04:08 AM
I don't have an article I can point to but the strong sense I've gotten from reportage now and from his prior primary run was that his Mormonism is an issue, specifically with evangelicals. It's not hard to see. He's the most morally upstanding guy -- no mistresses, no divorce, one marriage, family values all the way down -- but a significant number of politically powerful evangelists just threw their weight behind Santorum for the SC primary and for the foreseeable future.
And what's funny is the evangelicals are the ones with multiple marriages, mistresses, toe-tapping incidents, money-laundering, and pandering to family values while having none of their own.
Quote from: we vs us on January 16, 2012, 10:04:08 AM
I don't have an article I can point to but the strong sense I've gotten from reportage now and from his prior primary run was that his Mormonism is an issue, specifically with evangelicals. It's not hard to see. He's the most morally upstanding guy -- no mistresses, no divorce, one marriage, family values all the way down -- but a significant number of politically powerful evangelists just threw their weight behind Santorum for the SC primary and for the foreseeable future.
I've seen "reporting" about Santorum's evangelical draw, but besides a few fringe ministers and organizations, I've not seen much real momentum. In 08, it was expected that the evangelical support would go with Huckabee and the media widely reported it, however, in the primaries, most of those votes ultimatly went to McCain. I see the media interpreting things the way they would like, or based on a direction that they are comfortable with, but as we've learned, the media typically breaks with reality.
We are also facing a very different choice in this election. The strongest issues are not social issues, they are economic. The group membership of a candidate is far less important than the skills he offers a stagnate economy. Your various social/environmental/racial/religious goals are of little value if you do not have a job. You can't save the planet without a dime in your pocket.
I think we have also come to a realization that Cult of Personality is not enough to lead, and advance a country dependent on economic growth.
Quote from: AquaMan on January 16, 2012, 09:51:23 AM
Mormons are fine. I sure hope we don't ever have to consider a Scientologist though. That's where I draw the line.
Do you think Tom Cruise is the best example of that faith....
Balderdash! Balderdash, Mr. G.! The choice is the same as always. Left leaning moderate vs right leaning moderate. Absolutely nothing, other than party talking points, says anything different.
Phrases like "cult of personality" and "death tax" are made up to easily tag a person or issue then villify them. Makes the user sound so sophisticated too. In reality, neither of these candidates or parties has a lock on a surefire way to re-invigorate a world economy decimated by risky business practices, outrageous credit levels and abuses, a diminishing middle class and the aging of a huge baby boom blip of population. Throw in some revolution, some religious fervor, some class warfare and you got a witches brew no one person or party solves easily.
Quote from: Breadburner on January 16, 2012, 10:59:39 AM
Do you think Tom Cruise is the best example of that faith....
He's a good actor. That is all.
I draw my conclusions about the church from stories I've read about them for the last two decades. The most recent one dealt with the growing concentration of power in the church by one individual as relayed by yet two more former executives. That story was carried on Yahoo. When it broke, the response by readers was so negative to the church and so voluminous that Yahoo couldn't edit/censor them fast enough.
Quote from: AquaMan on January 16, 2012, 11:05:05 AM
He's a good actor. That is all.
I draw my conclusions about the church from stories I've read about them for the last two decades. The most recent one dealt with the growing concentration of power in the church by one individual as relayed by yet two more former executives. That story was carried on Yahoo. When it broke, the response by readers was so negative to the church and so voluminous that Yahoo couldn't edit/censor them fast enough.
They seem to act like holier than thow trained robots......
Quote from: Breadburner on January 16, 2012, 11:44:32 AM
They seem to act like holier than thow trained robots......
Let's just say, there are elements of cultism that they exhibit. ;)
Quote from: AquaMan on January 16, 2012, 12:10:32 PM
Let's just say, there are elements of cultism that they exhibit. ;)
Yes...Very euphoric cultism.....
Quote from: Gaspar on January 16, 2012, 09:28:01 AM
What do you base this on? Is someone on the right in the media or talk radio making a big deal about his religion?
Where do you think the anybody but Romney thing comes from?
Quote from: nathanm on January 16, 2012, 01:39:24 PM
Where do you think the anybody but Romney thing comes from?
This is the only place I've encountered that. Right here, on this forum. Actually, really only from your posts. I guess that's were it comes from.
Quote from: AquaMan on January 16, 2012, 11:00:53 AM
Phrases like "cult of personality" and "death tax" are made up to easily tag a person or issue then villify them. Makes the user sound so sophisticated too.
No, using the phrase "death tax" except in reference to other uses of it makes the user sound clueless.
Gaspar, my posts? One of us is misremembering.
Quote from: nathanm on January 16, 2012, 01:42:34 PM
No, using the phrase "death tax" except in reference to other uses of it makes the user sound clueless.
Gaspar, my posts? One of us is misremembering.
You are correct. It seems that RM was the one to bring up "anyone-but-mitt." Others, including yourself then picked up on it.
It is not being discussed anywhere else. The Anyone-but-mit theme came from an ultra conservative radio host, Michael Grahm, out of Boston in March of 2011. He didn't really harp on it much, but he bought up all of the domain names and derivations. Probably thought he could make some money if the movement took off. It did not.
I have not heard any conservatives promote the idea, then again, I watch too much liberal media.
It would be nice for liberals if that theme could take off, because it would provide a nice balance to the bumper-stickers of 04-08' promoting "Anyone but Bush."
For heaven's sakes Gas. Ever watch Cup of Joe in the morning? Its talked about every day by the hosts and the guests. Try looking at Yahoo headlines and quotes on MSNBC.com. You can't be that dense. Of course there is a movement. It didn't just start here with Nathan.
Quote from: AquaMan on January 16, 2012, 02:17:26 PM
For heaven's sakes Gas. Ever watch Cup of Joe in the morning? Its talked about every day by the hosts and the guests. Try looking at Yahoo headlines and quotes on MSNBC.com. You can't be that dense. Of course there is a movement. It didn't just start here with Nathan.
I'm not doubting there's a movement, I'm just doubting its popularity.
I am sure that there is a "movement" for just about everything.
. . .And yes, I am quite dense. Like a neutron star baby!
If dense is the worst thing you get called today, its a pretty good day eh? :D
One man's movement is another man's breaking wind....
Quote from: AquaMan on January 16, 2012, 02:39:25 PM
One man's movement is another man's breaking wind....
Good reason not to wear white pants.
Colbert Ad Airing in S.C. Attacks Romney For Being A 'Serial Killer'
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/colbert-ad-airing-in-s-c-attacks-romney-for-being-a-serial-killer/ (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/colbert-ad-airing-in-s-c-attacks-romney-for-being-a-serial-killer/)
QuoteIn an interview with George Stephanopoulos Sunday on ABC's This Week Colbert claimed he had not seen the ad.
"I had nothing to do with that ad. I have no control over that ad," Colbert said. "I am not calling anybody a serial killer. I can't tell Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow what to do. It's not my super PAC."
Quote from: Gaspar on January 16, 2012, 02:20:50 PM
I'm not doubting there's a movement, I'm just doubting its popularity.
Are you high? This is a thing and has been for months. It has been the standard explanation for why we have this seemingly endless cycle of possible Romney-replacements advancing and retreating in the polls like the tides.
However, I must say that this is delightfully amusing. You constantly bring up BS that nobody else talks about when it suits you and then suddenly when this thing which does not suit you comes up you deny that it even exists! That has got to be the biggest dose of cognitive dissonance I have ever been witness to.
Quote from: nathanm on January 16, 2012, 03:16:14 PM
Are you high? This is a thing and has been for months. It has been the standard explanation for why we have this seemingly endless cycle of possible Romney-replacements advancing and retreating in the polls like the tides.
However, I must say that this is delightfully amusing. You constantly bring up BS that nobody else talks about when it suits you and then suddenly when this thing which does not suit you comes up you deny that it even exists! That has got to be the biggest dose of cognitive dissonance I have ever been witness to.
Romney is no Ronald Reagan. That is the model that conservatives hold all candidates to, but that is far from embracing an "anyone-but-mitt" movement. I just don't see what you seem to be pushing.
I do relish when people I engage in discussion start name calling though. Please continue. ;D
Quote from: Townsend on January 16, 2012, 02:55:36 PM
Colbert Ad Airing in S.C. Attacks Romney For Being A 'Serial Killer'
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/colbert-ad-airing-in-s-c-attacks-romney-for-being-a-serial-killer/ (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/colbert-ad-airing-in-s-c-attacks-romney-for-being-a-serial-killer/)
Priceless! thanks for posting...
Quote from: Gaspar on January 16, 2012, 03:58:27 PM
I do relish when people I engage in discussion start name calling though. Please continue. ;D
I don't particularly enjoy it when people I engage in discussion lose touch with reality and make absurd accusations.
Quote from: Gaspar on January 16, 2012, 03:58:27 PM
Romney is no Ronald Reagan. That is the model that conservatives hold all candidates to....
Maybe now. But I heard he was not so popular with conservatives during the primaries. The Goldwater wing didn't think he was conservative enough.
Quote from: Gaspar on January 16, 2012, 03:58:27 PM
Romney is no Ronald Reagan. That is the model that conservatives hold all candidates to, but that is far from embracing an "anyone-but-mitt" movement. I just don't see what you seem to be pushing.
Not really. What they hold to is the idea of holding to the model of Ronald Reagan which is a far sight from holding to the ideal.
He understood some fundamental things that recent hijackers of his ideal just don't and never will have a clue about. In point of FACT, if we did somehow manage to get back to the "Reagan Ideal", these same posers would be screaming to high heaven...
But then, time has the ability to fuzz reality. (Plus the copious quantities of booze the posers ingest...?)
Quote from: AquaMan on January 16, 2012, 07:06:43 PM
Maybe now. But I heard he was not so popular with conservatives during the primaries. The Goldwater wing didn't think he was conservative enough.
That is true, he is more moderate than the far right would like, but I think that makes him a better candidate for the majority of conservatives. He was also governor of an extremely liberal state and was very successful working across party lines in that state. I think that is more of what we need than say an Obama or Gingrich, who have a difficult time working with diverse groups and differing political philosophies.
I think his biggest obstacle is actually his success. As our dependency state has grown, so has the number of people who display hatred towards success. That growing population admires victims over victors. Because they are driven by envy instead of ingenuity. They will try to make Romney into an evil person simply based on the fact that he has been successful.
Quote from: Gaspar on January 17, 2012, 10:54:03 AM
That is true, he is more moderate than the far right would like, but I think that makes him a better candidate for the majority of conservatives. He was also governor of an extremely liberal state and was very successful working across party lines in that state. I think that is more of what we need than say an Obama or Gingrich, who have a difficult time working with diverse groups and differing political philosophies.
I think his biggest obstacle is actually his success. As our dependency state has grown, so has the number of people who display hatred towards success. That growing population admires victims over victors. Because they are driven by envy instead of ingenuity. They will try to make Romney into an evil person simply based on the fact that he has been successful.
My biggest concern about Romney is the same one that Conan and others had about Obama. His experience with making alliances and deal making with Congress is lacking. Even less than Obama had. Massachusetts may be good experience, but he didn't have to fight his own people there. Just across the aisle. Congress is as fractionated as the Republican party.
Quote from: Gaspar on January 17, 2012, 10:54:03 AM
I think that is more of what we need than say an Obama [...], who [has] a difficult time working with diverse groups and differing political philosophies.
Pull the other one. At nearly every turn Obama has been to the right of his party in the name of compromise and bipartisanship. What more could you ask for? The Congressional Republicans to not take that as a sign they need to move even further right?
Quote from: AquaMan on January 17, 2012, 11:54:08 AM
My biggest concern about Romney is the same one that Conan and others had about Obama. His experience with making alliances and deal making with Congress is lacking. Even less than Obama had. Massachusetts may be good experience, but he didn't have to fight his own people there. Just across the aisle. Congress is as fractionated as the Republican party.
If President Obama wouldn't have attached a tax increase to every "compromise" he might have gotten more "get along" out of conservatives. Granted, we've got a crop of GOP's in Congress now who think they have a mandate to buck every single thing the President and Democrats want to pass. Indeed much of what their agenda has been the last three years is an ever more-intrusive government which flies in the face of conservative ideology. Perhaps Gov. Romney will be a better deal maker. He understands the art of negotiation from years in business. President Obama's experience as a community organizer and a legislator from Chicago has only given him an understanding of negotiation with a sledge hammer.
JMO, of course. ;)
Nate, there's always been a pile for Republicans attached to every compromise. He even blames the GOP when it's the Democrats in the Senate who are holding up his initiatives.
Compromise does not equal giving the other side everything they want and getting rid of everything you want.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 17, 2012, 05:51:15 PM
If President Obama wouldn't have attached a tax increase to every "compromise" he might have gotten more "get along" out of conservatives. Granted, we've got a crop of GOP's in Congress now who think they have a mandate to buck every single thing the President and Democrats want to pass. Indeed much of what their agenda has been the last three years is an ever more-intrusive government which flies in the face of conservative ideology. Perhaps Gov. Romney will be a better deal maker. He understands the art of negotiation from years in business. President Obama's experience as a community organizer and a legislator from Chicago has only given him an understanding of negotiation with a sledge hammer.
JMO, of course. ;)
Nate, there's always been a pile for Republicans attached to every compromise. He even blames the GOP when it's the Democrats in the Senate who are holding up his initiatives.
Tax increase needs to be defined. You pulled that one: "If President Obama wouldn't have attached a tax increase..."
and "Perhaps Gov. Romney will be a better deal maker" made me smirk.
I think he used the sledge hammer on Osama and Company so what's so wrong about using it on Congress?
Don't look for anything to happen with the budget until the election is over. And the dims would fall in line if they had some GOP/Teabaggers to vote with them.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 17, 2012, 05:51:15 PM
If President Obama wouldn't have attached a tax increase to every "compromise" he might have gotten more "get along" out of conservatives. Granted, we've got a crop of GOP's in Congress now who think they have a mandate to buck every single thing the President and Democrats want to pass. Indeed much of what their agenda has been the last three years is an ever more-intrusive government which flies in the face of conservative ideology. Perhaps Gov. Romney will be a better deal maker. He understands the art of negotiation from years in business. President Obama's experience as a community organizer and a legislator from Chicago has only given him an understanding of negotiation with a sledge hammer.
JMO, of course. ;)
Nate, there's always been a pile for Republicans attached to every compromise. He even blames the GOP when it's the Democrats in the Senate who are holding up his initiatives.
Mitt might have more success in general, not because he's a better negotiator per se but because centrist Dems are
stupendous compromisers.
Quote from: we vs us on January 17, 2012, 10:24:37 PM
Mitt might have more success in general, not because he's a better negotiator per se but because centrist Dems are stupendous compromisers.
That and he's white. Sorry couldn't resist. :-*