Willard Mitt Romney

[jillian]

For three years, from 1982 to 1985, Mr. Romney served as the bishop, or lay pastor, at his church in Belmont, Mass. After that, he served nine years as "stake" president, overseeing about a dozen Boston-area parishes.

And, your point? During his tenure as governor of probably the most blue state in the country, did he ever try to impose a religious agenda on his people?

Nope.

 

[pegwinn]

Personally I don't trust Romney. But, I really think it is low to attach a religious test based on his faith. And, as has been pointed out, the Sins of the Father etc.....

 

[Paulie]

Ah now we get to the issue. You don't like he's a mormon. Me? I could care less because he's not a theocrat. I find Huckabee far more dangerous in that regard.

As for Mitt... who cares if he prefers a nickname. Seems like you're the one trying to make an issue where none exists.

You're worried about lobbyists? I'd love to hear your myriad of criticims of Bush/Cheney for allowing lobbyists to run policy.

jillian lobbyists run 99.999% of politicians' policies.

It's a huge reason why politicians who DON'T have lobby influence don't GET anywhere in this country.

Lobbyists scratch polticians' backs, and politicians return the favor.

You'd think that since this is OBVIOUSLY common knowledge among voters (or IS it?), that those politicians wouldn't be so timid in respect to talking about it. And you'd also think voters (if they actually do realize this), would pick more candidates that DON'T pander to the lobby influence.

But what voters REALLY care about, is a politician who is going to wake them up in the morning, get them dressed, feed them their meals, sing them a lullaby, tell them a bed time story, tuck them in, and give them a night-night kiss before bed and tell them don't worry child, everything is going to be alright...stick with papa(or mama).

We aren't ready as a nation to accept anything other than what we've always gotten...a huge political bowl full of shit.

 

[Shogun]

This is the kind of minutae that some people actually care about? No wonder we get such bad leadership if this is the sort of thing some of the electorate focus on.

Who cares? I go by my middle name as well. My first name is Robert, but my parents always called me by my middle name as a child.

This is an issue? Sheesh.

This is true. although, you shoud tell people that the R stands for Rasputin.. Something with a little flair.

 

[Avatar4321]

It seems you are trying to trivialize the topic of honesty in a Presidential candidate. As long as he has a nice smile who cares what he thinks, eh?

The other day Willard Mitt Romney stated that lobbyists do not run his campaign but he has one of the biggest lobbyists in Washington working for him.

The Mormons themselves have a checkered past that should be taken into account when a leader in the church shows up running for political office.

http://www.rickross.com/reference/mormon/mormon106.html

And he was right. Lobbiests dont run his campaign. Simply because he has hired one, doesnt mean they are running the campaign. It's not that difficult to understand. I dont exactly see how you can claim someone is lying when they arent.

 

[Avatar4321]

Ah now we get to the issue. You don't like he's a mormon. Me? I could care less because he's not a theocrat. I find Huckabee far more dangerous in that regard.

As for Mitt... who cares if he prefers a nickname. Seems like you're the one trying to make an issue where none exists.

You're worried about lobbyists? I'd love to hear your myriad of criticims of Bush/Cheney for allowing lobbyists to run policy.

no mormon could be a theocrat because it's completely contrary to mormon theology which says we need to uphold the US constitution to protect religious freedom.

 

[Paulie]

And he was right. Lobbiests dont run his campaign. Simply because he has hired one, doesnt mean they are running the campaign. It's not that difficult to understand. I dont exactly see how you can claim someone is lying when they arent.

It would be pretty stupid on the part of a candidate, to have a lobbyist officially registered to your campaign with the FEC, wouldn't it?

The big question is, why do you have lobbyists even working for you at all?

 

[Avatar4321]

It would be pretty stupid on the part of a candidate, to have a lobbyist officially registered to your campaign with the FEC, wouldn't it?

The big question is, why do you have lobbyists even working for you at all?

Because lobbiests are people too and have a right to participate in the political process like everyone else.

Lobbiests arent bad. They are advocates for different groups of people. Do you really want people to lose their voice?

 

[jillian]

no mormon could be a theocrat because it's completely contrary to mormon theology which says we need to uphold the US constitution to protect religious freedom.

Could be why he doesn't make my "freedom of religion" censors go off like Huckabee. I have far too many real things to disagree with Mitt on, I simply don't care what his religion is if he doesn't try to impose it on anyone else. But thank you re mormonism. I really know very little about it. See, I think if Romney hadn't flip-flopped on social issues just to suck up to the evangelicals who weren't ever going to vote for him, anyway, he'd have been a shoe in for the republican nomination.

 

[Paulie]

See, I think if Romney hadn't flip-flopped on social issues just to suck up to the evangelicals who weren't ever going to vote for him, anyway, he'd have been a shoe in for the republican nomination.

I almost agree with this, except how could he convince the fiscals?

Where in Romney's record can he claim fiscal conservative?

And if you say like some conservatives: "fiscal conservatism doesn't mean anything anymore", than why is the number 1 issue in this election the economy?

How are non-fiscal conservatives going to fix this almost unfixable economy, by not being as fiscally conservative as they possibly can?

 

[jillian]

I almost agree with this, except how could he convince the fiscals?

Where in Romney's record can he claim fiscal conservative?

And if you say like some conservatives: "fiscal conservatism doesn't mean anything anymore", than why is the number 1 issue in this election the economy?

How are non-fiscal conservatives going to fix this almost unfixable economy, by not being as fiscally conservative as they possibly can?

Because most of these so-called fiscal conservatives aren't that at all. They're government haters who think we should defund the federal government and balance the budget by getting rid of any programs that helps people.

And seems to me that's far more radical than it is "conservative".

 

[Paulie]

Because most of these so-called fiscal conservatives aren't that at all. They're government haters who think we should defund the federal government and balance the budget by getting rid of any programs that helps people.

And seems to me that's far more radical than it is "conservative".

jillian, I don't know the fiscal program that romney espouses COMPLETELY, I'll admit that.

I know that if you're going to cut entitlements, you need to have a replacement in order to maintain what those people were accustomed to, or else you're going to have rioting, poverty, and DEATH.

To say that no one else NEW should be able to join in on the teet-sucking fest, at the behest of the government, is not such a bad thing.

Do you realize how many people refuse to even ATTEMPT to get a job, becasue they know they can just sit on their asses and collect DAMN GOOD MONEY, especially if they have kids?

OBVIOUSLY some kind of reform needs to take place. Not RHETORIC about reform to garner votes, but REAL REFORM.

Spending needs to be cut SOMEWHERE. And I'm talking about at LEAST 1 TRILLION dollars worth, for starters.

Where's that cut going to come from?

I'd say a couple billion from defense, a couple billion from entitlements, a couple billion on foreign aid..."couple" meaning obviously, enough to add up to 1 Trillion total.

Do you not agree? Because you can't tax us anymore than we already are. They tax us, and the middle class goes bankrupt. Whether they tax the middle class or the upper class.

Understand also, that this is coming from a person who's never seen more than $50,000 a year.

 

[Shogun]

the world’s most controversial boardgames
http://deputy-dog.com/2008/01/17/the-worlds-most-controversial-boardgames/

 

[mattskramer]

the world’s most controversial boardgames
http://deputy-dog.com/2008/01/17/the-worlds-most-controversial-boardgames/

Neato. Thanks for the site.

 

[Shogun]

digg.com


sometime they post some real gems.

 

[Mr.Conley]

jillian, I don't know the fiscal program that romney espouses COMPLETELY, I'll admit that.

I know that if you're going to cut entitlements, you need to have a replacement in order to maintain what those people were accustomed to, or else you're going to have rioting, poverty, and DEATH.

To say that no one else NEW should be able to join in on the teet-sucking fest, at the behest of the government, is not such a bad thing.

Do you realize how many people refuse to even ATTEMPT to get a job, becasue they know they can just sit on their asses and collect DAMN GOOD MONEY, especially if they have kids?

OBVIOUSLY some kind of reform needs to take place. Not RHETORIC about reform to garner votes, but REAL REFORM.

Spending needs to be cut SOMEWHERE. And I'm talking about at LEAST 1 TRILLION dollars worth, for starters.

Where's that cut going to come from?

I'd say a couple billion from defense, a couple billion from entitlements, a couple billion on foreign aid..."couple" meaning obviously, enough to add up to 1 Trillion total.

Do you not agree? Because you can't tax us anymore than we already are. They tax us, and the middle class goes bankrupt. Whether they tax the middle class or the upper class.

Understand also, that this is coming from a person who's never seen more than $50,000 a year.

You wanna know where to cut money first? The Department of Agriculture. That moneyhole takes in nearly $100 billion a year.

 

[pegwinn]

Because most of these so-called fiscal conservatives aren't that at all. They're government haters who think we should defund the federal government and balance the budget by getting rid of any programs that helps people.

And seems to me that's far more radical than it is "conservative".

I am not a .gov hater at all. I think we should limit the departments and agencies to those allowed by the Constitution. Anything else is to the States and People. I have no problem helping people. But, I do have a problem being told who I will help via my taxes.

the world’s most controversial boardgames
http://deputy-dog.com/2008/01/17/the-worlds-most-controversial-boardgames/

Too funny, Reps for you.

You wanna know where to cut money first? The Department of Agriculture. That moneyhole takes in nearly $100 billion a year.

Ya know how farmers get a pay raise? Extend the mailbox by another inch. Problem with Ag is that the fed is deep into regulating and subsidizing as a price control measure. If we drop Ag, food prices will rise. I can live with that, but someone who is poor will have problems. Also, USDA is the agency that makes sure you are not eating tainted meat, and that milk gets homogenized. At least, USDA can be justified via the commerce clause without a big stretch.

 

[cranston36]

That was a good one about the farmers.
Especially the cotton farmers.

 

[AllieBaba]

The middle name thing...

My brother, his oldest son and two eldest boys go by their middle names, not their first.
My dad didn't use either of his names and instead went by "Sonny".
Likewise my uncle "Wis".

I don't have a problem with somebody using a nick name or their middle name. It's pretty much the way things are done where I'm from.

And I was told after a divorce long ago that it's perfectly legal to start calling yourself by any name you like, whether or not you've actually changed your name, so long as you aren't doing it to defraud anyone.

 

[cranston36]

I am still interested in why those folks don't use their names. What's the history?

Is the answer to the question 'why' as secret as their first names?