The Real Delegate Count - it's not over

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

I will be worried until the day after the election. Although I believe things are trending well for Mitt, its a tightrope walk and anything can happen in an election. And I believe Obama is that dangerous.

As far as blame is concerned, it matters little to me who gets the blame in the end. If Obama gets elected we all lose. If Romney gets elected, there's a much better chance that the American way of life is preserved.

We DO NOT win with Progressive Republicans.

And let's look a little closer at his Mormon beliefs. Do we get to browbeat Sarah Palin over her beliefs, mock her, but we can't touch Romney? This is something I want know.


The last law is the "law of consecration." It requires the Mormons to ...consecrate yourselves, your time, talents, and everything with which the Lord has blessed you, or with which he may bless you, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for the building up of the Kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion.

A couple of terms need explanation. The "Kingdom of God on the earth" and "Zion" mean, to Mormons, not just their church, but ultimately the theocracy that will replace the non-religious civil government. They believe, of course, that Christ will come to run this government, using faithful Mormons as administrators.

The pressing question for Mitt Romney, and for the Mormons who are supporting his candidacy, is: Would Romney consider the Presidency to be something that God had "blessed" him with, and which, pursuant to his secret oath, he should "consecrate" to his church for establishing a theocracy? If he is elected, will he kneel down and thank his God for blessing him with the presidency? And what is he supposed to do, according to his secret oath, with "everything" God has blessed him with? That's right: he is to use it for the benefit of the Mormon church.

And how convenient, Mike Leavitt is a Mormon too.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by AreYouReady?

I think you got it all wrong nitehawk...that is what we are trying to say here. For me, it isn't about boo hooing over Romney "not being my guy". It is over what the election process had devolved into. I might dare to say that Romney is a guy that most people would not have chosen to be their top man because everybody I've talked to said he wasn't their first pick ...but he is better than Obama. Come on! If he is not most people's first pick, then how did he even get the GOP nomination? This primary rings like an old "To Tell The Truth" series. Would the real GOP candidate please stand up? And each one will stand up and sit down until like pop ups.

Speaking of to tell the truth...I will tell the truth here when I say that even if Ron Paul got the nomination, I am not so sure I would have voted for him. Not because he is being accused of being a senile old gynecologist who wants to legalize pot and heroin. But because during the 2008 election there was obvious voter fraud against him and he would not ask for recounts or do anything to secure any or all votes accounted to him. He told his supporters to just move on. I saw that as a weakness for if he would not support his own election, how would he support his policies to Congress...who incidentally are a runaway group of people that all need to be replaced.

What is at stake here is the integrity of the election process. Ron Paul was not given equal time on much of anything in the media. The "nutty" opinion of him that people formed IS because media would cut him off, or edit some of the fine points he was trying to convey about our government and economic system to the american people. Words can be taken out of context or removed altogether to present a completely different viewpoint than what a person really has...and the media has done a good job of that.

Editing, photoshopping and other media tricks can make anybody look like a saint or a nut.

Exactly - the integrity of the election process. Great post, again!

[aegsm76]

PO - do you examine everyone, that is running for office, religious beliefs as closely as you are examining Mitt's?
Or is this just one of the "strawmen" that you are using to justify your non-support of him.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

PO - do you examine everyone, that is running for office, religious beliefs as closely as you are examining Mitt's?
Or is this just one of the "strawmen" that you are using to justify your non-support of him.

You must not be following all the political talk very closely or you wouldn't be asking. My only thought is that this particular argument annoys you.

I vetted Santorum, stood up to the fact that we did "cringe" when it was Gov. Perry's turn at the earlier debates. My husband said, "He pulled an A&M on us."

And to answer your question - Cindy or another Admin would have to dig up our lengthy "raking over the coals" of Obama in 2008, when he was up for election.

Are you running for anything? 'Cause we are coming after you. Be afraid, be very afraid.

[Subdued]

PO, you almost have me convinced.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Subdued

PO, you almost have me convinced.

I'll work a little harder then!

[Subdued]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I'll work a little harder then!

Snap to it!

[AreYouReady?]

If Obama wins this election, it cannot be blamed on people who cannot consciously vote for either nomination. THAT excuse is a strawman excuse. Wanna know why?

It is because the american people have been thoroughly scientifically studied about their habits in every economic issue concerning us. That is why there are mail and phone surveys. The people do not know that they are being studied for future projections of commerce and other economic issues.

I would say that the majority of americans do not study out why they vote for who they vote for. Many people right here in the southeast only vote straight party lines. They do not care who the man is or what he has done in his life. They think that because he is democrat, he is for the health and wealth of the ordinary man, woman and child. Or they think that republican means automatically for big corporation and business. They cannot be more wrong on either issue.

Both of the parties are working for the same people, (not americans but international business. Read the Confessions of an Economic Hitman for details) The only difference between the two is that they go about it in different ways. Ok. For example...currently millions of americans do not have medical insurance. The insurance companies know this and they lobbied Congress for decades. The people have been paying for the uninsured for decades too in the form of rising healthcare costs. The Obama Administration and the democrat controlled congress bullied that healthcare bill into passing. We heard vows of overturning this if we would elect a republican controlled congress. We did. Did they keep that promise? LOL!

Now we hear about how Romney is going to tweak the healthcare bill. I highly doubt it. What we have witnessed with this healthcare bill is that it is mandatory, even though there is growing unemployment and people will not have the money to buy insurance. And we have seen that they mandated the people into commerce, but mislabeled this bill as a Healthcare Reform bill when it really should have been labeled as an Insurance Reform bill because that is all we really have been told what was contained in this bill. So far, the insurance companies are going to be making billions because it is mandatory that the american people dig up a piece of our pie to add to their pie. Somebody please share how Congress is going to "reform" our individual healthcare except to control what kind of healthcare we receive according to our age and severity of illness? That is something that is supposed to be between doctor and patient...but no more. The panel will decide.

You all watch and see. Because of massive unemployment and the inability for people to come up with anywhere between $400-$1000 monthly for insurance, this country will see the single-payer socialized insurance.

I would say ignorance of what each candidate stands for is the main reason why we get who we get in the Oval Office. Many people do not take the time to research except what they see on television or in the newspapers...and much of that is empty promises. One can go to PolitiFact.com and see the stats and explanations. And the fact that once in office, they change their point of view. Obama did about gay marriage, among other things, did he not?

[CC1]

Love it when the conspiracy nuts......er...theorists show up with that claptrap about both parties being the same.

The history of judicial appointments alone is enough to prove there is a vast difference in the two political parties and the Presidents of each.

Another good example would be that no Republican President, starting with Ronald Reagan, has allowed our tax dollars to be used for abortions. Both domestically and with foreign aid. Both Clinton and Obama did. In fact it was a day one directive from Obama to allow our tax dollars given in foreign aid to be used for abortions.

The Republican party may not be as conservative as you would like but it is asinine to say it is the same as the Democrat party.

The talk about all American politics being controlled by big business is amusing and has been fodder for conspiracy nuts for a very long time. I guess it is human nature to want to make a big conspiracy out of everything.

[AreYouReady?]

CC1, I am neither a "conspiracy nut" nor a "theorist".