1 I just wish the GOP and the media would stop pretending everyone is a potential candidate.  Dump a few of the also-rans and let's have more time with those candidates who actually have a shot.

My thoughts?  About the same: Winners were Romney and Giuliani.  I was also impressed by Huckabee. 

The big loser was McCain.  He's no longer got a shot, and it shows in his demeanor. 

2 Was there much conservative opposition to McCain-Feingold when it was it was voted? 

I know now, we all pretty much hate it and realize its uselessness.  But was it as clear back then?  Is it right to blame Fred! or was everybody else fooled as well?

3

J-Mac, expressing bitterness and anger over his upcoming rejection?

 

Somebody needs to switch to decaf.

4

Ace,

you write a well thought out post, and then you write something like this:

>>Huckabee to be dignified, intelligent, and likable, whereas I wanted to slap Brownback in the face with a frozen haddock.

Everyone knows that a large mouth Bass is better for slapping someone in the face.

5 IreneFingIrene, my memory is that there was a LOT of conservative anger over McCain-Feingold before it became law, but people assumed Bush wouldn't sign it. And Bush assumed the Supremes would shoot it down if he did. Total fustercluck.

6 And a flounder or other bottom-dwelling fish is best for slapping. On account of  you got both them eyes staring at you.

7

An old mackerel in a sock works well in a pinch.

8 I think they said 11 Republican Senators voted in favor of it.  So 48 or so didn't.

Mitch McConnell was pretty unyielding on it.

9 You know, we should have realized what a big squish Bush was when he allowed McCain to browbeat him into signing the campaign finance reform legislation.

10 Was there much conservative opposition to McCain-Feingold when it was it was voted?

From what I remember, there was opposition to it, but mostly no one believed it would actually pass a Supreme Court challenge, so the organized opposition wasn't what it might have been.

11

Rudy wins the general by 10 points, he wins Jersey, Pennsylvania and has a shot at New York.  I can't say that about Fred or Mitt, therefore, Rudy is my guy.  He looked and sounded the most likeable and presidential.  Fred and Mitt will be looked at and framed as just more of the same. 

We have to win this election to keep this party going.  Period.  If we lose, God help us all.

12

We have to win this election to keep this party going.  Period.  If we lose, God help us all.

Nah.

We cannot deal with another squishy President for 4 years if we want to keep this party going. If whoever we elect runs off on some liberal snipehunt to provide healthcare or bring people out of shadows, you can stick a fork in the party.

13

I look at McCain the same way I looked at Murkowski when he left the senate to run for governer. I did'nt vote for him (actually voted a dem). I figured he's just one of those good ol' boys that had been at it for too long and far to comfortable with his power base. "I deserve this to be governern just cuz".

Term limits. fuck em all

14

I could vote Romney or Rudy and I predicted before the debates started that Huckabee would be in the top tier when opinions were given on who won. He is just not electable in the general election. It would very difficult for me to vote for McCain in the general election but I mostly likely will if that is my choice. What I don't understand is the infatuation with Fred Thompson.

Fred Thompson was a lobbyist for 18 years. Help push through McCain-Feingold and maybe the only Republican Senator to vote against tort reform. He accomplished nothing as a Senator and in fact , John Glenn pwn'd him during the campaign donations investigation.  He voted 'no' on the perjury charge which is the only charge that is really not in dispute. Clinton lost his law license for 3 years based on it. 

Also, it may seem minor to many, but a measure of Thompson for me is his decision to return to acting instead of remaining in the Senate when the country needed him most, just months after 9/11. 

 

15 Sure, sure.  But what about Ron Paul?

16 >>Romney's showing unexpected strength and poise

Not unexpected to all of us. I've been beating his drum so long I feel like a weird mirror view of rho.

But does anyone listen to me? Noooo.

I'll just go back to commenting on multi-year wood.

17

>>Also, it may seem minor to many, but a measure of Thompson for me is his decision to return to acting instead of remaining in the Senate when the country needed him most, just months after 9/11. 

Polynikes, Fred decided not to run for re-election because he had lost his young daughter. A personal tragedy squelches power ambition in upright people.

18 Rudy doesn't belong on the Republican ticket, if you look at his positions.
As a conservative I can't consider voting for him.

I'm looking between Romney and Fred Thompson right now.

19 I am the wya and the lgiht.

20

I'd be happy with Rudy or Romney, but I'd be pumped for Fred!

Its real interesting how only the Republicans face tough questions. I guess now we know why the dems ditched FOX.

How come we're never asked to give a question to the candidates?

My 1st question would be:

Many in politics and the media want to bring the troops home now, regardless of the consequences to the nation. Traditionally the troops have only come home when victory was achieved. What are your plans to ensure victory over Islamism?

 

21 I just wish the GOP and the media would stop pretending everyone is a potential candidate. Dump a few of the also-rans and let's have more time with those candidates who actually have a shot.

Why be so eager to turn it into a horse race? Every time we do we get some suit who wants bigger government to do A, and some suit who wants bigger government to do B.

Plus the idea that the media and the GOP get to effectively ordain Presidents is a frightening one.

(This would be less of a pressing matter, who gets elected as President, if our federal government were operating under the constraints placed on it by the Constitution.)

22

 Fred decided not to run for re-election because he had lost his young daughter. A personal tragedy squelches power ambition in upright people.

I would not classify running for reelection after your country has been attacked as being a power ambition. He got married 5 months after his daughter died , continued to act part time during recesses and went back to acting full time after his term ended in Jan 03.  Still says plenty to me.

23 The fuck is Ron Paul still doing there?

24 Christians konw Mormons believe in Christ. They just "believe in" him the same way, say, Joe Average does: he existed and did good stuff.

25 My question would be: "Do you believe there is an upper limit to the  amount of a person's income or wealth that the government should be allowed to take, and if so, what is that limit?"

If I could get a followup, I would ask, "Is this an ethical position, or a technical one?"

26 Why be so eager to turn it into a horse race? Every time we do we get some suit who wants bigger government to do A, and some suit who wants bigger government to do B.

Plus the idea that the media and the GOP get to effectively ordain Presidents is a frightening one.

(This would be less of a pressing matter, who gets elected as President, if our federal government were operating under the constraints placed on it by the Constitution.)

They're not "ordaining a president," they're simply acknowledging reality.  Tommy Thompson, Tom Tancredo, Jim Gilmore and Ron Paul have no chance of being elected president.

Furthermore, they know they have no chance of being elected president.  It's time to stop stroking their egos and let the viable candidates have more than 10 seconds to talk.

I'm sick of this "we've got to be fair for the sake of fairness because it's good and happy and rainbows and unicorns to be fair" nonsense.  This is a competition, and these guys aren't bringing it.

27 VI, did you watch the debate last night?  Rudy sounded as conservative as anybody up there, except, of course, on abortion.  Ace has it right, do you just want to hear the right things?  Idealogical purity is mandatory, right?  That is not the country we live in right now.  Conservative purity will get drummed in 2008.  My attitude is let us win to fight another day.  Unfortunately, this Pres has set back the movement, so do we wipe the slate clean and go back to permanent minority status and get nothing, or take what we can get?  I say, take what we can get.  And, incidentally, I think Rudy would be a great President.

28 Slubbo, rho's just pissy because it means Ron Paul will be pushed out of the debates. Face it dude, he doesn't stand a prayer.

29

16 >>Romney's showing unexpected strength and poise

Not unexpected to all of us. I've been beating his drum so long I feel like a weird mirror view of rho.

But does anyone listen to me? Noooo.

As far as I can tell, the only difference between RINO Rudy and FlipFlop Mitt is that Rudy is more honest and consistant in his positions, with Romney being a smooth talking chameleon.  Either one of them gets the nomination, I stay home for the first time since I was old enough to vote.

Look beyond his scripted and rehearsed remarks and you get a Big Government, anti-gun, pro-illegal immigrant RINO who's wearing a conservative costume just long enough to try and get the nomination.  Were he nominated, he'd flip back to being a "moderate" Republican so fast you'd think it was an evil twin or something.

Duncan Hunter or Mike Huckabee would both make good presidents, but it's unlikely either of them have a realistic chance of winning the primary or general election.  Newt has too much baggage, and is a Global Warming whore.  Fred is our best (if imperfect) hope.

30 And I'd take Rudy over Romney, something about Romney just screams disengenous, I don't get that vibe from Rudy.

31

Yes

As a matter of fact, and I'm NOT a mormon, I also believe in Chirst.

They keep it right next to the Valu-rite Vodka.

32

Why is polynikes pretending to be a conservative now just to lambast Thompson?

Was that a question? Damn. Well it shouldn't have been. Don't answer that.

33 I've got to say I love the fact that since the libtards at CNN and the MSM force our guys to fight on their hot button issues, whoever the Republican nominee is will be a lean, mean, debating machine against liberal talking points..

On the other hand, since all the Dims are wrapped in a nice, warm blanket, fed a bottle, and gently burped at their debates, they should be thoroughly haddock slapped in any presidential debate.

34

>>since all the Dims are wrapped in a nice, warm blanket, fed a bottle, and gently burped at their debates....

They will poop,fart and barf in that blanket when they face Fred.

35 My previous comment was quite inane. I just needed to type poop.

36

Judd-

Conservative purity will get drummed in 2008.  My attitude is let us win to fight another day.  Unfortunately, this Pres has set back the movement,

So after the conservative movement suffered a setback by Bush, the answer is to set it back even further with Rudy?  If we don't fight back now, then when?  After the Republican party has been pushed so far to the left that they look like Democrats of 20 years ago, and Democrats looking like European Socialists?!?

But please, if someone can explain to me why Rudy is getting so much support please do, because I'm fucking baffled beyond belief.  He's an anti-gun, pro-abortion, pro-amnesty, pro-sanctuary city, authoritarian RINO who in saner times should've been laughed out of the room as a Republican nominee.  The only thing that makes any sense to me at all is that name recognition gave him an lead in early polls, which led others to jump on the bandwagon in a self-fullfilling cycle.

37

they should be thoroughly haddock slapped in any presidential debate.

pssshh. Who do you think is gonna hold the general debates, Fox News?

No. General debates will be arranged like this:

Mr. Thompson, critics of US foreign policy say our close, visible partnership with Israel destroys our image as a neutral mediator and honest broker in the region, which prevents us from being able to positvely impact peace talks. How would handle relations with Israel and what would you do to encourage Palestinians to begin the peace process without being a complete fascist about it?

Ms. Clinton, what is your favorite color, and why?

38 Thirty-two posts and Bart still has not weighed in on the subject.

39 Posted by: Hollowpoint at June 06, 2007 01:50 PM (plsiE)

Hollowpoint, I think it's because Rudy fights.

After six years of watching Bush roll over and play nice with the left, it's nice to see someone actually criticize Democrats and call them out by name.

40 >>Look beyond his scripted and rehearsed remarks and you get a Big Government, anti-gun, pro-illegal immigrant RINO who's wearing a conservative costume just long enough to try and get the nomination.

That's just wrong. Just because Romney doesn't walk around packing doesn't mean he is anti-gun. There is zero evidence of this. He is most definitely not pro-illegal immigration, ask anyone who lives in MA what was one of Deval Patrick's first acts after taking over for Romney. He is no big gov't RINO. The record does not support this comment.

Here's a quiz. Name all the Republicans in the MA Congressional caucus. Trick question actually, there aren't any. Not a Senator or a single Congressman. The Gov is now a Dem, the LT Gov, the AG, the Treasurer, as are both House of the MA state gov't. Overwhelmingly. MA is the most Democratic state in the union. Period.

The only issues Romney is accused of flip flopping on are gay marriage and abortion. Gay marriage is such a non-frigging issue it's a joke. It only matters to a small segment of the country and gets blown up every election cycle as something on the level of Iraq. Abortion, he went from personally against pro-choice to full on pro-life. In other words, the Reagan position. Seemed to work well for Ronnie.

The simple fact is the only way you win as a Republican in MA in a state wide race is by running as at best a moderate. You don't have the luxury of driving around in a red pickup with a gun rack. If Fred! had tried his act in MA he would still be on stage. The only way he would ever have gotten to DC is ask a guest of Jack Ryan.

Romney and Rudy are the only two top tier candidates in the field who have any executive experience and Romney has a ton of it. It's easy to sit back and good ol' boy the NRO team (they switch candidates faster than Rudy does wives) but I am reserving judgement on Fred until he actually, ya know, runs.

41

an...an increasingly unhinged Ann Coulter excortiates him for merely voting to remove Clinton from office on one count, as opposed to two.

But why give Fred credit for convicting half-way?  It seems to me that Ann, rather than harping on Clinton, is simply pointing out that Fred dropped the ball in a fairly fundamental way at an important moment.

Add his McCain-Feingold vote to that, and I have to confess a tiny bit of discomfort with this.  I don't think a man who wants to be POTUS should be given a pass for being politically cowardly.

Look, I'm still giving to give Fred a nice donation the minute he announces, and I'm keeping an enthusiastic and open mind about him, but I think both his impeachment voting record and McCain-Feingold support are legitimate objects for criticism.

42 Christopher Taylor said:

Christians konw Mormons believe in Christ. They just "believe in" him the same way, say, Joe Average does: he existed and did good stuff.

Respectfully, that's not an accurate characterization of Mormon belief in Jesus Christ. Please read The Living Christ. I couldn't possibly put together a better summary of our belief in Christ than what is in that document.

43 Huckabee's an open borders, Bush-Kennedy-McCain supporter. Doesn't that kinda knock him out? Shamnesty support's an abhorrent position and, I think, pretty much a contemporary litmus test for the Presidency... a GOP one anyway.

In conclusion, Huckabee's out. Maybe he and McCain can visit a strawberry patch and collect some discount, freshly-picked-by-undocumented-Americans fruit to go with their campaign champagne when the debates end.

44 by his admission he'd (McCain) never actually read the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq before casting his vote.

Is this the hot, new "It's not my fault!" excuse for everyone now?  Damn, you would think that these guys would be embarrassed to admit that they voted without reading the Estimate, but instead, they seem to want to announce this as loudly and as often as possible, as a way of denying responsibility for their vote.

I'll give McPain this, he has learned well at the feet of his Democratic masters.

45

I don't think you can call Fred politically cowardly. He opposed tort reform and the good samaritan law.

And he got the hell out of DC (and got the rep for being lazy) because, from everything I can tell, he really didn't like the Senate, the attention grabbing bullshit they spend half their days on, and the way they were doing business (that's a plus in my book).

Fred made a big mistake on Campaign Finance reform, but I can easily forgive him it, if he just admits he is wrong and asks forgiveness. And he's about half done that allready, so he's half forgiven.

I allready did forgive Senor Arbusto for it, and what I can begrudge Senor Arbusto I can sure as hell begrudge Fred! Thompson.

46

I disagree on your characterization of Rudy.  I would say he is a economic conservative, pro-offense first on WOT, Washington outsider, who can appeal to the Reagan Democrats.  But do any of us know how any of these candidates will govern?  No.  But my gut, and I could be wrong, says Rudy will do the best job and has the best chance to get elected. 

I think the bottom line is, do we put up a idealogically pure candidate and get beat, or do we put up the best general candidate and win.  Which, incidentally, our best general candidate is still miles better for conservatives than any Dem.

 

47

I think both his impeachment voting record and McCain-Feingold support are legitimate objects for criticism.

Oh...I do to. Absolutely. Legitimate.

I just think they're kinda weak.

48 Sinistar:
Slubbo, rho's just pissy because it means Ron Paul will be pushed out of the debates. Face it dude, he doesn't stand a prayer.

My annoyance goes beyond that. I'm also pissed that no 3rd party will ever be viable in a horserace-mentality election cycle. The 10-second response times are a function of the medium, not the number of candidates. I for one would really prefer if Ron Paul could speak longer than 10 seconds, because the compression ends up leaving lunkheads thinking he said something he didn't.

Slublog:
I'm sick of this "we've got to be fair for the sake of fairness because it's good and happy and rainbows and unicorns to be fair" nonsense. This is a competition, and these guys aren't bringing it.

I'm not suggesting that we be fair, I'm suggesting we let the debate widen. I mean, honestly--is there really any compelling difference between Rudy, Mitt and Fred!? (McCain is certainly different WRT immigration, but even he is pretty vanilla Republican.) Most of the talk regarding the top-tier candidates is whether they are more or less electable than the others. I'm sorry, but I don't particularly care about "electability" unless it's inexorably tethered to "good ideas".

Back to the original point, if you only let the spotlight shine on the people who are polling high, you're only going to encourage name-branding in politicians. Because let's be honest, these 500-800 person media-sponsored polls are largely dependent on the name-recognition factor. The actual count that matters is at the voting booth by Republican primary voters.

49

Shamnesty support's an abhorrent position and, I think, pretty much a contemporary litmus test for the Presidency

Oh, and Brownback is in favor of the piece-of-shit immigration bill.

Let his name never be mentioned for VP again.

50 JackStraw, Romney supports a Spooky Weapons Ban. Said so in the first debate. He's not gonna have solid support from gun rights people for that.

51 Posted by: rho at June 06, 2007 02:05 PM (8eBMH)

But why widen the debate if it includes ideas that will never be rewarded by voters?  I'm not a believer in individual polls, but instead look at poll trends in aggregation - and the aggregate poll trends show voters are largely rejecting the candidates I named above.

This isn't simply due to name recognition - the voters (on the state level in many cases) have had exposure to these candidates and are judging them based on that exposure.  Sure, there is some simple name recognition support going on, but that doesn't count for more than a few percentage points overall.  To suggest otherwise is unnecessarily dismissive of voter opinion as measured by the various polls in question.

52

I'm not fond of putting down the masses. In general, I think 'the public' is a smarter entity than it gets credit for. But if you take out all the people who will vote Democrat or Republican no matter what, the election-deciding folks in the middle are not really idealogues.

Ideological purity will determine how much of each party's base turn out.

For the rest, likeability counts for a whole, whole lot.

53 Sinistar-

Romney supports a ban on assault weapons. I don't have a problem with this although I know some do. That and supporting a waiting period for gun purchases are the only "anti-gun" positions he has taken. He is a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment and actually got some gun restrictions loosened in MA. That's a matter of record.

I thought the pandering he did by joining the NRA and talking about varmit hunting was dumb and unnecessary but he is hardly anti-gun ownership.

54

I mean, honestly--is there really any compelling difference between Rudy, Mitt and Fred!?

WTF? Umm....Fuck yes? At least Rudy, and there are differences between Mitt and Fred too, but with Rudy there are chasms.

Most of the talk regarding the top-tier candidates is whether they are more or less electable than the others. I'm sorry, but I don't particularly care about "electability" unless it's inexorably tethered to "good ideas".

I'm not concerned with which of 3 are most electable. What has me chewing my nails and glancing back and forth is trying to figure out which one is most going to actually govern like he says he will once he can safely stop campaigning.

I think that thinking is wrongheaded, and I virulantly dislike this whole 24/7 horserace campaigning. But it isn't the candidates that drive that, it is the media.

And Fred! has been going a good ways to change that, penning 3 dozen essays on a plethora of issues so that he can be "on the record" on things ranging from Cuban relations to school shootings.

Not that he has anything to do with the latter as President..but you get to see inside his head....that is assuming he actually wrote those (or, assuming a ghostwriter did, that he really even agrees with them or hell, has even fuckin read them). Not that they've gone into any groundbreaking depth of policy. But it's something.

Again - the question now is which ones are lying to what degree. Then adjust what they say they'll do versus how much they mean it and see who comes out ahead. Maybe Rudy being 100% honest (which I don't think for a damn second he is) turns out to be more conservative then Hunter lying 50% of the time. Maybe not. It's alot of guessing based on character judgement, and trying to get a feel for how they think.

55 "For the rest, likeability counts for a whole, whole lot."

And this ended up getting for the conservatives... Bush. Likability ain't cracked up to be such a grand metric. How many people are ready to sit around the frat house and drink a beer with this guy now?

I'd like a hardass in office for a while. Not condescending or arrogant, mind you, but a bit more serious and straightforward and a bit less jovial. Brains would help, too.

56 Slublog:
I'm not a believer in individual polls, but instead look at poll trends in aggregation - and the aggregate poll trends show voters are largely rejecting the candidates I named above.

I'm simply not impressed with any polls until the counting really counts. The Internet polls can be manipulated. The telephone polls are often inaccurate and getting more inaccurate.

Sure, there is some simple name recognition support going on, but that doesn't count for more than a few percentage points overall

I seriously contest that assertion, although I have no proof. If you're a hardcore Republican, you're likely thinking electability, which means a big name; if you're just some schlub, you're voting for the guy you most recognize.

Of course, I'm just whistling in the wind here. So long as the GOP and Democratic parties swim in cash by demonizing the other side they don't have to really care about serving the Party in any real way. The honchos get paid just the same, and the interns will always be with us.

57 McCain is so over. After last night's generally panned performance he managed to get to the Capitol to vote against the Cornyn amendment that would have prevented felons, absconders and people who reentered the US after being deported from getting amnesty.

Nice.

I doubt he'll run as a 3rd party guy but he'll stay in to the end and try to fuck any chance a decent conservative might have at winning in 08 by going negative on the whole field.

Cranky old sellout bastard.

58

I worry about the concept of putting Rudy forward because we think he'd appeal to the Democrats enough to draw votes away from Hillary.

The Dem's tried that approach with Kerry. They thought he was (ya' know being a Veteran (sic) and all that) the most appealing to the Independents and moderate Republicans.

Well, that didn't work.

I am reluctant to fall into the same trap.

 

59

Likability ain't cracked up to be such a grand metric.

Nonetheless, it gets people elected. No sense arguing it shouldn't be what people choose leaders for.

It's what gives me a niggle of worry about Obama. He's got that 'nice guy' thing going.

60 Sure, sure.  But what about Ron Paul?

He's too busy getting fellated by the left to go anywhere.

61 I'd like a hardass in office for a while. Not condescending or arrogant, mind you, but a bit more serious and straightforward and a bit less jovial. Brains would help, too.

Jean Luc Picard for President.

(Oh wait, he's French. And fictional. And in the future. Never mind.)

62 Entropy:


Eh, I don't see it. All of them are purportedly smaller-government, low-taxes, strong on defense, or at least tell us such.

As far as I can tell, none of them are small government, no taxes and strong on defense (as opposed to offense).

As to which ones are lying, well I can assure you of this--all of the candidates will disappoint in one way or another, but Ron Paul has consistently stuck by his guns. Maybe that's because he's got nothing to lose by going that way, maybe it's because he really does believe in the power of individual liberty. A strong primary showing by Dr. Paul would really shake up the GOP, and I think it's long past time for it.

63

Has anyone watched Dan Abrams on MSNBC lately? I caught a bit of him lastnight for the first time in a longtime. He's off his fucking rocker! Abrams is as crazy and obsessed as Keith Who(?)

 

Let me explain what Ann Coulter is trying to do. We all remember that Ann was never enthusiastic for Alito and Roberts. The reason why she never gave her seal of approval to those guys was because she's trying to keep the standard high for Conservatives. She saw the writing on the wall with Bush's "compassionate conservatism," i.e. Liberalism, long before anyone else did.

Ann knew we would always get milk-toast from Bush. And she knows now that our Republican candidates will ALWAYS migrate to the safety of the middle of the road when the Conservatives get worn out and settle for "the best we can get."

Ann Coulter doesn't settle, and neither should we. We've got to keep the pressure on the candidates to stay Right/Conservative. If that means ridiculing them for votes made ten years ago, so be it. Of course we should take Fred Thompson to task for his votes in the Senate. When our politicians stray they must be called out and punished. That's what Ann Coulter is doing -- keeping the pols accountable.

64 It would be nice if they whittled down the candidates to those who might at least be Veep.  I think that knocks out T-Thompson, Paul, Brownback.  I doubt the Tanc would be picked VP, but maybe I'm wrong.  Gilmore seems qualified, ditto Duncan Hunter, Huckabee just has a decent night so we'll keep him too.

65 I'm simply not impressed with any polls until the counting really counts. The Internet polls can be manipulated. The telephone polls are often inaccurate and getting more inaccurate.

General rule of thumb: most media polls are crap.  However, Rasmussen, Gallup and Mason-Dixon are good pollsters with good methodology and those are the two I look to the most for trend data.

I seriously contest that assertion, although I have no proof. If you're a hardcore Republican, you're likely thinking electability, which means a big name; if you're just some schlub, you're voting for the guy you most recognize.

Contest all you like.  However, if you have a good sample size and a good question set, you're going to get overall good data.  These pollsters are not simply asking "who do ya like?"  The good ones are asking questions that will gather information, not just count heads.  Any reputable pollster will ask questions for crosstab data, at minimum.

And your analysis of why people respond in polls is far too binary.  There are those who answer questions based on actual beliefs, something you did not mention.

66 On Picard and "Oh wait, he's French. And fictional. And in the future. Never mind."

Damn. You saw right through my scheme. What do you have? A holodeck?

67

That's just wrong. Just because Romney doesn't walk around packing doesn't mean he is anti-gun.

No, what makes him anti-gun is his support for an "assault weapons" ban, and the strict gun control measures he passed and supported as governor.

He is no big gov't RINO. The record does not support this comment.

He didn't technically raise taxes in MA, but did raise "fees" and corporate taxes ("closed loopholes").  He came out in the debates in favor of National Health Care and an expansive federal government role in education.  I call that "Big Government".

He is most definitely not pro-illegal immigration.

OK, I'll give you that one- it was his successor I was confused with.  Still, he seems to support some kind of normalization for illegals.

The simple fact is the only way you win as a Republican in MA in a state wide race is by running as at best a moderate.

So, was he being dishonest about his views while running for Governor and Senator in MA, or is he being dishonest about his views now?  Or are we to honestly believe it a coincidence that his change in political philosophy just so happened to coincide with his campaign for President?  Were the people of MA duped, or were his current supporters?

 

68 It's what gives me a niggle of worry about Obama.

RACIST!

 (I'm sorry, what does it mean?  Oh, who cares!)

RACIST!

69

I'll tell you this flat out.

If Rudy was not in the middle of a tough campaign for a Republican nomination, I have absolutely no doubt he would be 100% for the piece-of-shit immigration reform bill, and I'll give you 50-50 odds he'd be out there telling the bigots to shut up with Lindsay.

70 "But please, if someone can explain to me why Rudy is getting so much support please do, because I'm fucking baffled beyond belief."

Rudy is not my first choice, or my second. But if he's the pick, he has my support. Consider:

Rudy:
- Pro-abortion
- Anti-gun
- Socially liberal
- Pro-American
- Very strong on the GWOT
- Strong executive experience

All Democrats:
- Pro-abortion
- Anti-gun
- Socially liberal
- Embarrassed by being American
- Eager to haul up white flag to AQ
- Never run so much as a hot-dog stand

Let's not let the best become the enemy of the good. Compared with any Democrat, Rudy looks pretty damned good; and that's all that matters.

71 Also, gun grabbing is probably a moot point and it won't be an issue that comes up, but Rudy's gun grabbing makes Mitt Romney look like Mad Max.

72

Oh...I do to. Absolutely. Legitimate.

I just think they're kinda weak.

Well, the McCain-Feingold vote suggests that Fred was willing to reduce fundamental First Amendment rights for the sake of political expediency, and his vote against removing Clinton from office suggests that Fred was willing to look the other way when the President committed perjury.

How are either of those weak criticisms?  Do we really want to embrace another politician who might restrict our right to political speech or turn his back on perjury?

I'm more than happy to entertain legitimate reasons to look past this, but dismissing them as weak isn't going to cut it without further elaboration.

73

Hollowpoint, I think it's because Rudy fights.

After six years of watching Bush roll over and play nice with the left, it's nice to see someone actually criticize Democrats and call them out by name.

Can someone who just thought it would be "OK" if Roe v Wade- one of the most dishonestly activist decisions ever- were overturned would fight Joe Biden for us on judges?  Would an anti-gunner fight Chuck Shumer on 2nd Amendment rights?  Would a pro-illegal immigrant, sanctuary city supporting President fight Ted Kennedy on immigration?

Bush can be a fighter too... as evident when it came to medicare, Harriet Miers and immigration.  He just fights the hardest when it comes to screwing his own base.

74

Ron Paul has consistently stuck by his guns.

All of Ron Paul's positives, what ever the hell they may be, are moot points to me. I do not care if this map craps gold apples and has the cure for cancer, in my opinion, his kooky foreign policy will destroy us. We will not be left to enjoy no taxes.

He is the sort that would have opposed intervening in yet more "war in Europe", Tojo would have a statue in L.A. and Greenland would be home to V2 rocket bases aimed at New York.

75 Slublog:
Contest all you like. However, if you have a good sample size and a good question set, you're going to get overall good data.

I don't necessarily disagree. But phone polls depend on who's at home, and there's no way to insure these are actually likely voters. That said, the polls do tend to be generally accurate, if not specifically so.

I still don't agree with culling the herd based on polls. The Pajamas Media polls dropped Paul because he's below 1%, but they include Fred! even though he's not even announced. That's daft to me.

We've got 3 middling Republicans (can't really call any of them conservatives, except maybe Romney) and are asked to choose between them. That may go well for somebody in the primaries, but what about the general election? Nobody is really excited about any of them, and whoever shows up will have to compete with Democrats who are very excited about electing the first woman and/or black as the President of the United States. Conservatives may just stay the fuck home if Rudy is the one at the plate, and then the Party will lose.

(And I hate to admit it, but in the open primaries States, Paul may get a better showing than he's earned from leftists crossing the lines. Not enough to make him a truly viable candidate, I don't think, but enough to make him noticable.)

76 Entropy,

I'd say the odds are far better than 50/50 Rudy would be out there with Graham calling people bigots.  This was my first clue....

In 1996, Giuliani Said Of Measure Recognizing English As Official Language: “There’s No Reason To Pass A Bill Like This Except, Maybe, To Exclude People, Insult People Or Offend People.”

77

Well, the McCain-Feingold vote suggests that Fred was willing to reduce fundamental First Amendment rights for the sake of political expediency, and his vote against removing Clinton from office suggests that Fred was willing to look the other way when the President committed perjury.

You know what you're problem is?

You're actually trying to interperet senate votes to mean something about someone's position on some issue.

They are specifically designed so you cannot do that.

His vote against the perjury impeachment was just that - a vote against perjury impeachment and his vote for McAmnesty-Feingold was just that - a vote for McAmnesty-Feingold. Ditto all his positive votes too.

To me, a long senate record is nowhere near as good as a long, consistent verbal record. If the guy is singing to the same tune for 20 years (ala Reagan) he's for real.

But senate votes hardly mean anything. They don't even read those bills.

78 Hollowpoint-

As I said, I don't have a problem with the assault weapons ban. I know you do. The name Hollowpoint is a dead giveaway. I just, respectfully, don't think putting AK47's on the street is a great idea. Not because of people like you. It's the same for me with cars. I don't support banning cars but I do support a ban on open wheel Indy cars on I-95. And a waiting period to do a background check? Why is this even an issue? We regulate cars in this country much more thoroughly than guns. I have no problem with responsible, lawful gun ownership. I support it. But I don't think background checks infringe upon anyones rights.

He did raise some fees and yes, closed loopholes in corportate taxes. Frankly some of these fees should have been raised. He also inherited a $3.2 Billion deficit which he eliminated.

Fees raised:

Marriage License, taking a case to court, buying a house and using a public golf course. Hardly controversial. These total about $260 million.

Not raised

Income tax (in fact he worked hard to get the rate reduced)
Capital Gains which actually paid a refund

As for closing loopholes to make corporations pay taxes instead of individuals, good. I defy you to tell me you would rather he raised rates on individuals and let corporations not pay.

One area that he has taken some heat on is the recently passed comprehensive insurance act in MA. It claims to offer health insurance to everyone in the state without raising taxes. Take a look at it in detail and tell me what you think. It ain't Hillary Care.

I won't deny that he probably massaged his message to get elected in MA. Find me a politician who hasn't changed or "evolved" on some issues. Look at Ronald Reagan for crying out loud. The man was a A New Deal Dem in his early days. Are you calling Ronald Reagan a liar? Did he dupe all of us?

Unless you happen to be a liberal from MA or a Conservative from OK, chances are you will have to do some pandering to get elected. I think what you are seeing now is what Romney is all about.

79 Nobody is really excited about any of them, and whoever shows up will have to compete with Democrats who are very excited about electing the first woman and/or black as the President of the United States. Conservatives may just stay the fuck home if Rudy is the one at the plate, and then the Party will lose.

Actually, that's an assumption.  Each candidate has their supporters, and I think it's pretty safe to say some might just be excited.

80

Senators don't get elected president. But governors do.

The last time a senator was elected president, he had to steal Illinois to do it.

81

Romney-Hunter is the winning ticket.

 

Freddy T. looks like a lazy dullard bastard to me. He'll be lucky to stay awake during a state of the union. Fuck him. Hollywood trash.

 

82 Ha ha ha! AP is pissed off at KP and is cussing her out over on HA.

83

Mitt Romney will be the next president.

Now let's get busy and pick his Veep.

84

Senators don't get elected president.

I agree. Which is why his reputation for lazyness, the fact he didn't do much in the Senate, and the fact that he apparently hated the Senate and got the hell out right quick, aren't going to hurt him very much.

They're all bonified positives in my book.

He hates the way the Senate works? Cool! Any reasonable person ought to hate the way the Senate works and barely be able to tolerate having to sit there all day.

Someone who enjoys spending 8 hours in the Senate should never leave the Senate, because they are not wanted or useful anywhere else in life.

85 Entropy:
in my opinion, his kooky foreign policy will destroy us. We will not be left to enjoy no taxes.

Oh come on. Maintaining a strong national defense, emphasis on defense, and securing our borders will not destroy America. Non-interventionism may be a disasterous policy, but we've got flakey, wishy-washy, inconsistent (which means dangerous) policy now. At least one is less expensive than the other.

I can assure you, however, than an ever-larger, more expensive, more onerous federal government will destroy America, at least as we think of it as a nation of liberty and freedom. Look at this amnesty bill as an example--it is a foot in the door for a national ID card. Twenty years ago, would you have thought that you'd be asked for "your papers, please" in every airport, rental car counter and traffic stop? It certainly could happen. Unless we deviate from the path we're on now, I predict it'll happen in my lifetime.

And like most government policies, once its there, it's exceedingly hard to remove. But at least you'll have defeated terrorism, right? Or have you? You won't know. You'll just have that big government telling you such.

86

Posted by: RighTurn at June 06, 2007 02:57 PM (ojH/g)

Here here. Excellent analysis from the man who actually cannot spell "right".

87 I didn't watch- did Romney explain why, with his stated desire for English as the official language of the USA, he's running bilingual ads?

88

 Non-interventionism is disasterous foreign policy, and one America has never in it's passed ever engauged in, for good reason.

From the very get go we were putting marines in North Africa and patrol ships in the damn Mediteranean.

Just because you stop intervening doesn't mean other people will stop - in fact, they won't stop. And without you to combat their effect, they'll will sweep the floor and drag everyone off with them.

Then one day, your enemies become strong enough to strike you at home, you have to stop being non-interventionist, you take a look around and realize in all those years of your abscence all your enemies have grown, all the world is your enemy, and none of your friends are left.

89 I didn't watch- did Romney explain why, with his stated desire for English as the official language of the USA, he's running bilingual ads?

I thought that was one of the dumber questions of the night, since I hate the "gotcha" nonsense. 

There is a difference between government documents and official business and how someone chooses to advertise a campaign with their own funds.  I'm lukewarm on Romney, but felt Wolfie threw him some unfair curveballs last night.

90 Slublog:
Actually, that's an assumption. Each candidate has their supporters, and I think it's pretty safe to say some might just be excited.

Yes it is an assumption. Have you seen the numbers for women's support of Hillary? That's big. In any event, there will not be much if any critical coverage of the Democrat candidate in the MSM. So you've got to have really fanatical support on the Republican side to counter that built-in advantage. Reagan-level support, especially if it's a Hillary/Obama ticket (which is quite possible).

Logically you have a point, but instinctively I do not get the same vibes of excitement regarding a Mitt Romney presidency.

(And if we put Rudy up for election, you will see endless coverage of Rudy-in-a-dress. I can guarantee that, too, and I for one will stay home.)

91 OK...as for Fred!s record:

He was wrong to have voted for CFR. No argument here, Kensington.

As for the Clinton Impeachment vote, I actually worked on that (for a different Senator, who voted Guilty on both counts).

Many on the GOP side, including several former prosectors and State Court judges and the like, felt that the perjury charge brought over by the House was actually the weaker of the two charges, as the evidence supporting this charge was not as convincing. It was generally understood that "Clinton lied" in the aggragate sense, but it was very difficult to read his testimony and find exactly where he did so, in the strictest legal sense. Even the House prosecutors had a difficult time with this.

Many Senators who voted against conviction on this count had legitimate beliefs, based on their own professional experiences in the legal system, that the charge simply was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. One can argue whether this is the standard that has to apply for an impeachment vote, but for some senators it was and they voted accordingly.

Remember, their vote on perjury was cast prior to the Judge in the Paula Jones case ruling that Clinton had committed perjury, so it had not been formally adjudicated at the time.

It was a great irony then, that many who voted for the Obstruction of Justice Charge only were then faced with the fact that Clinton was ultimately held accountable for Perjury instead.

Coulter is way off base here. The fault lies not with those who failed to vote for either count; the scorn should be reserved for those who willfully voted for neither, or who sought to invoke Scottish Law or similar bunk. They are the ones who turned the blind eye to Clinton's conduct.

92 I'm a Romney supporter but he is wrong on the AWB. The only difference between an assault weapon and a deer rifle is the magazine capacity, durability and looks  A 30-06 deer rifle is much more powerful than a semi auto AR-15.   If you look at crimes committed with a gun, you will find that the ones committed with  'assault weapons' are low on the list.

93

I don't understand people ripping Fred! over impeachment.  He voted to remove Clinton from office on the other charge, didn't he?

Besides, do some of you really want to tempt fate by questioning Fred!'s bona fides?  The man can kill you with a mere sideways glance.  You want to risk that?

94 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7v_V8qSIIo

95 Entropy:
Non-interventionism is disasterous foreign policy, and one America has never in it's passed ever engauged in, for good reason.

Switzerland. Sweden. It's not disastrous. And defending American shipping from the Barbary pirates is not an "interventionist" policy.

Non-interventionism doesn't mean no war ever. But it does mean no foreign military bases, no foreign aid, and no picking sides in foreign disputes. Basically we treat the rest of the world the way we ourselves expect to be treated, which means left alone to follow our own path.

Your doomsday scenario will certainly attract a lot of fear-based support, but it's highly unlikely that we'll just be sitting around and the World will turn to shit and then attack us. You assertion that we'll have no friends is also incorrect, as free trade is the best foreign policy advocate you can have.

96 In any event, there will not be much if any critical coverage of the Democrat candidate in the MSM. So you've got to have really fanatical support on the Republican side to counter that built-in advantage. Reagan-level support, especially if it's a Hillary/Obama ticket (which is quite possible).

Hillary is too vindictive to allow Obama to share a ticket with her.

If she is the nominee, her strength with single women will be leveled out by her weakness with white men.  She is extremely unpopular with white men (married or unmarried) and more unpopular than popular with married women (who tend to be more conservative).

Sure, she'll get fawning press, but she's her own worst enemy as a candidate and has to impress some rather large voting blocs to get anywhere near to the White House.

97

Tancredo will be on Howie Carr at about 3:36p today.

 

98 Non-interventionism only works if your enemies are not expansionist.

Islam is decidedly expansionist, and China and North Korea have shown signs they would be as well.

Wonder what's holding the latter two back?

99 A Hillary candidacy also means cha-ching! for the GOP fundraising efforts. I think it was P.J. O'Rourke who said that everytime her face appears on TV the GOP gets 20 million dollars in contributions.

I wouldn't discount a Hillary/Obama candidacy. If they really tear into each other in the debates, then maybe not. The desire will be very strong to concede on this, IMO.

100

"As for closing loopholes to make corporations pay taxes instead of individuals, good. I defy you to tell me you would rather he raised rates on individuals and let corporations not pay."

Corporations don't pay taxes.  Consumers of their goods or services do.

101

>>Switzerland. Sweden.

Are you kidding, rho? rabbits and mice have the option of being non-interventionists in jungle politics. Elephants and tigers don't.

Switzerland's non-interventionist policy is bought with the blood of innocents everywhere. Dictators oppress their people, get rich, and park their money in Switzerland. Most American's will be refuse to be as amoral as Switzerland.

102

I won't deny that he probably massaged his message to get elected in MA. Find me a politician who hasn't changed or "evolved" on some issues. Look at Ronald Reagan for crying out loud. The man was a A New Deal Dem in his early days. Are you calling Ronald Reagan a liar? Did he dupe all of us?

Reagan's transformation happened over a course of decades.  Romney's happened in the space of time it took him to decide to run for President.  Big difference.  To me, the flip-flops on abortion and gay marriage don't concern me in themselves, but in the wider context of a candidate who's been a "moderate" up to very recently who's now trying to portray himself as a conservative- yeah, it's a big deal.  I see little reason to trust him.

I'm not going to bother responding to your support of the gun control since you clearly haven't informed yourself about the issue well enough to participate in an informed debate. (hint: it's not only about so-called "assault weapons"; efforts to ban guns that are cosmetically different from other firearms is only a step in a wider gun ban).

After 8 years of Bush, I'm not going to be in a position to trust a "compassionate conservative" or any other kind of moderate to further conservative goals again.  Fool me once...

103 Oh, and BTW, Switzerland and Sweden can afford to be non-interventionist because they know that when the $hit hits the fan, US will come to the rescue.

104 Did any of the candidates mention yesterday during the debate that it was the 3 year anniversary of Ronald Reagan's death?

105 Slublog:
Islam is decidedly expansionist, and China and North Korea have shown signs they would be as well. Wonder what's holding the latter two back?

In the case of China, it's Russia. North Korea couldn't expand if they imported Thanksgiving, not without Chinese help. And South Korea is incapable of defending itself because, dun dun dun, we've done it for them.

If Islam is expansionist, who will they expand into first? The United States? Or France? Once we're no longer carrying the water for the world, the rest of the world will be forced to sit up and take notice of expansionist Islam in their own backyards.

And let me note that the only expansionist foreign power we are really threatened by is Mexico, and not enough of the GOP candidates are hard core regarding that.

106

Your doomsday scenario will certainly attract a lot of fear-based support,

It's not about acquiring fear-based support, it's what I actually expect to quite obviously happen rather cause-and-effect like. That is why I oppose it so vehemently.

Switzerland. Sweden.

Get away with that weasley bullshit because they have other players protecting them. We protected them from Communism. Who will protect us, if not us? Lichtenstein?

Sweden is notorious for appeasing whatever asshole seems the most powerful, from Kruchev to Hitler, because of this. And it was their tacit support of Hitler, combined with the fact he was preoccupied with less spineless jellyfish in places like England, is all that kept them even remotely safe. He didn't need to conquer Sweden because they did whatever he wanted them to, and it wasn't worth occupying an ally to consolidate it when there was a war afoot. (Though had Hitler won, he'd have occupied Sweden all the same then).

Switzerland, ditto. Lucky geography and spineless politics mostly keep them safe through distraction. Switzerland gets by based on the fact that at any given time, one if it's neighbors is infinitely more problematic for it's potential threats then they are.

The modus operandii of these countries is to be the least one eaten, and they survive only because others fight the aligators for them.

Which...by the way...is another example about non-interventionism.

If you don't intervene for Sweden and Switzerland, these idjits sure as hell won't do it for themselves. And then there will be no Sweden or Switzerland, no cheap minimalist Ikea furniture and no expensive gilded Rolex watches. No Swiss Bank Accounts and no dynamic economies. Instead, you go non-interventionist, you find these countries absorbed into your enemies who grow stronger and larger from it. Until someone is strong enough to come absorb you, and then you'll find no one to help you, as this is the non-interventionist way.

107 Tancredo is on now.

108 If Islam is expansionist, who will they expand into first? The United States? Or France? Once we're no longer carrying the water for the world, the rest of the world will be forced to sit up and take notice of expansionist Islam in their own backyards.

On what do you base that?  History says otherwise.

109 Tancredo says he happy that his presence at least pushed the others in the race to admantly oppose amnesty.

110

no picking sides in foreign disputes.

But other countries will continue to pick sides in foreign disputes.

Russia/Iran/China will continue to meddle in all manner of disputes. And Russia/Iran/China meddling in Cyprus, minus an American counteragent, will win all of these disputes and mold the world as they see fit.

And they see fit to mold a weapon to wield against US. This is what I mean by "all the world enemies" and "all your friends gone".

Basically we treat the rest of the world the way we ourselves expect to be treated, which means left alone to follow our own path.

That's nifty, really. But whether you expect that or not that is not what you get. All manner of country are constantly trying to meddle in our affairs, and will continue to meddle in our affairs no matter what. The only thing that stops them is a lack of ability to do so effectively. Whenever they can - at all - they will. No matter what. No matter what you expect.

This is the nature of countries. It is like human nature, only "country nature". To deny it, does not change it. To ignore it is to set yourself up to be punked by it.

111 Tancredo says he happy that his presence at least pushed the others in the race to admantly oppose amnesty.

Good to see he's taking credit for something he had nothing to do with.

112

adamantly?

113 The anger over the amnesty bill from the base is why the candidates opposed amnesty last night.  Tancredo had nothing to do with it.

114 I'd love to see Huckabee win it, just because I'd love to see East Coast and San Francisco lefties choke on the phrase "President Huckabee".

He'd be a good Veep candidate to someone, especially Rudy.

115 Switzerland. Sweden. It's not disastrous.

Without America, they would have eventually fallen.

Sometimes not taking sides is evil.

116

Of course he did, Slu.

Your oppostion to Tancredo is silly.

117 Respectfully, that's not an accurate characterization of Mormon belief in Jesus Christ. Please read The Living Christ. I couldn't possibly put together a better summary of our belief in Christ than what is in that document.

Respectfully, I oversimplified the statement, but absolutely Mormons do not believe in the Jesus Christ of the Bible or what Christianity teaches him to be as the substitutionary atonement who is our salvation as God incarnate.

118 Tushar D:
Oh, and BTW, Switzerland and Sweden can afford to be non-interventionist because they know that when the $hit hits the fan, US will come to the rescue.

We've got a circular argument here. The U.S. is interventionist because we're the biggest, but we're the biggest because we project our power. And as a side note, you agree that we allow other countries to catch a free ride.

(I didn't suggest that we adopt Switzerland's banking system, BTW, so that's a strawman.)

The logic is sound--we have vast interests because we're so big and powerful, and therefore it's beholden to us to project our power to protect those interests. The problem is that even the best of intentions have unintended side effects, and one of those is that we have become an implicit, if not explicit, imperial power and therefore the principal target for terrorists and the principal scapegoat for foreign governments.

I can't guarantee freedom of terrorist attacks with a non-interventionist policy, but I can guarantee a smaller government from that policy. The interventionists can't guarantee freedom from terrorist--indeed, we've had several attempted terrorist attacks since 9/11--and they are unashamed by the increase in scope and power by the federal government.

I say this as a beneficiary of the most expansionist, interventionist empire ever, the British empire. We owe nearly everything to those policies. But this is a different world now, and increasing our international political profile increases our danger.

119

Of course he did, Slu.

Your oppostion to Tancredo is silly.

Well, perhaps you can explain how a guy who is polling sub-1% in the polls changed the hearts and minds of the other candidates and the national debate over immigration.

He's a non-factor and a self-aggrandizing buffoon.

120 It is still early.  Its going to come down to Mitt, Fred or Rudy.  While none are perfect, all are acceptable, and whoever gets the nod will have a chance to grow along the way.  I'm old enough to remember June of 79', and all the talk about how RR couldn't get elected, was too conservative, was too old, etc., etc.   Then there was that crazy idea about a "Shared Presidency" with Gerald Ford at the convention.  Hell, Reagan was behind in the polls that summer to Jimmy Carter.  There is a lot of baseball left.

121

Not sure why you guys are tossing Huckabee into the pile of possible candidates unless y'all are hankering for another heapin' helping of Arkansas Clinton-style corruption.

Or did you all forget that Huckabee and his wife larded themselves up with a boatload of gifts on the way out of the Arkansas governor's mansion by taking advantage of a loophole that said they could accept gifts as long as they came through a wedding registry?

Never mind that he and the Missus had been married for thirty years.

122

Sweden

Those damnable scandis will get theirs!

They're already under attack from within.

123 Entropy:
That's nifty, really. But whether you expect that or not that is not what you get. All manner of country are constantly trying to meddle in our affairs, and will continue to meddle in our affairs no matter what

Really? Who's meddling in our affairs in this country? I mean to the extent we're meddling in other countries.

This is the nature of countries. It is like human nature, only "country nature".

It's not the nature of countries. It's the nature of a country's political ideology. Most democratic countries are relatively free of meddling in others' affairs. China, Iran, the Soviet Union--these are nations that are interventionist because they are inherently unstable within. They must seek foreign growth (or at least fight foreign devils) to keep their artificially propped-up politics from imploding.

Tushar's example of India in the other thread is a good example here, I believe. They're not a major military power (except for the bomb, of course), and they don't tend to meddle in foreign nations. (Except maybe as support for an American-led excursion, for example, and I could be wrong on that. My modern Indian history is pretty weak.) But they are a major international power because they interact with the world on an economic level. Which is not to say they're perfect.

China is a major problem, but we're not going to solve the China problem with weapons or war, and to suggest otherwise is daft.

124

We've got a circular argument here.

No we don't. Switzerland and Sweden were living off other people's armies before we were a superpower. Like I said - last on eaten sounds good to them. They will appease and position until they're the only ones left, and then their fate will be decided for them. This is how they have been shown to operate even before the US stepped up.

And a free trader cannot deny that the existence of Taiwan is good for us. Without intevertionism, there would be no Taiwan, ONLY China, which hates us.

We do not intervene on other people's behalf - you don't see us in Darfur. We only intervene where we have interest (like in the Mediteranean to secure shipping lanes). Because we have interest there. If we do not protect it, we will lose it.

If we had not stood up and defeated the Barbary pirates, France and Italy (or even England) would not have risen to the occasion in our absence.

They were fine and content doing absolutely nothing at all for quite a long time before we came around.

125 >>I'm not going to bother responding to your support of the gun control since you clearly haven't informed yourself about the issue well enough to participate in an informed debate. (hint: it's not only about so-called "assault weapons"; efforts to ban guns that are cosmetically different from other firearms is only a step in a wider gun ban).

And to think I engaged you when you clearly knew nothing about Romney accept what you get in the MSM. The nerve of some annonymous internet posters.

I'm not going to argue the cosmetic issues either. The vaugeries of the act work both ways as anyone who has looked at the issue at even a cursory level knows. Barrel shrouds, removing bayonet mounts, 10 round magazines vs. 11 to make them "legal". My point remains. I have no idea why anyone needs a semi-automatic weapon and have yet to here a good reason that outweighs the danger of having these things on the street. We can agree to disagree on this one.

(hint: Romney is now a member of the NRA. He increased the number of types of guns legal in MA. He changed laws regarding hunters carrying loaded weapons. I'd say your arsenal is safe.)

126 Oh, and I don't doubt that there will always be "meddling". I'm mostly concerned about the level of "meddling", and how our "meddling" tends to infantilize other nations by us picking up their slack and making us a prime target for the minor players.

127

Really? Who's meddling in our affairs in this country?

Everyone who can!

I mean to the extent we're meddling in other countries.

No one.

Because they lack the ability, not the willful desire. If they could, they absolutely would, no matter what we expect and no matter whether or not we do back.

But once we are done being a hegemonic empire, they have the ability to start thier own hegemonic empire in the places we leave. They have the ability to be hegemonic over Cuba and hegemonic over Kuwait.

And then they will grow with their own little global hegemonic empire and eventually, they will eventually have the power to exert hegemony over us.

And then, when we reach that point and realize what they can do, we will say "Oh shit. We never should have let it get this far."

128 but I have a sneaking suspicion some were reassured to learn that Mormons do in fact believe in Chirst.

Christ is spelled wrong

129

Switzerland's non-interventionist policy is bought with the blood of innocents everywhere.

Tushar - so is Sweden's. You've never met the strongarm they do not love and adore. Hitler, Stalin, Kruschev, Hussein, whoever. Whoever treats them the worst and calls them a filthy, dirty whore is the one they love.

It is an ideology founded with "last one to be eaten by the tiger" as the goal.

130 rho:
China is a major problem, but we're not going to solve the China problem with weapons or war, and to suggest otherwise is daft.

Call me daft if you want, but our weapons of war are the only reason China hasn't invaded Taiwan.  And I doubt they'd stop there.

131

making us a prime target

Who and what we are makes us a prime target.  And it always will.

132 I'm mostly concerned about the level of "meddling", and how our "meddling" tends to infantilize other nations by us picking up their slack

Me too.  For example, I want us to pull out of South Korea.

and making us a prime target for the minor players.

This is wishful thinking; we are a prime target no matter what we do.

133

Rho,

you twisted my India example. Yes, India would love to be non-interventionist. But China forming a ring of enemies around India concerns us a lot. So we have to hang our non-interventionist jacket, and start Military cooperation with Vietnam etc. India has been working with Vietnamese Army to help update their warmaking capabilities. We are also assisting Afghanistan form their police and armed forces. We are not doing this because we are altruistic. We are doing this to counter China and Pakistan. It is a jungle out there, rho. Eat or be eaten.

134 China is a major problem, but we're not going to solve the China problem with weapons or war, and to suggest otherwise is daft.

You may want to let China in on this revelation.  I am sure they will be pleased to know they can stop spending all the money they are on increasing their military.

Yes, there are political and economic aspects to dealing with China but the military does and will play a major role in dealing with China. To suggest otherwise is to ignore history and reality.

135

 We owe nearly everything to those policies. But this is a different world now

Nawp. Some things never change. People still need food and shelter, men still don't understand women, dogs still don't like cats, and nations still seek hegemony because it is in their rational self interest to do so.

It is against our rational self interest not to do so.

Like I said, it's in their nature.

136 Entropy:
We do not intervene on other people's behalf - you don't see us in Darfur. We only intervene where we have interest (like in the Mediteranean to secure shipping lanes). Because we have interest there. If we do not protect it, we will lose it.

It is a circular argument--we're interventionist because we're big, and we're big because we project our power. One serves the other. Take away interventionism and we shrink. When we shrink, we become a lesser target. How much lesser may be debatable, but it is lesser.

We do intervene on others' behalf. Kosovo and Somolia, for example. You can assert that Sweden and Switzerland would be the last one eaten, but that assumes that things like a Nazi Germany are de facto stable governments. They aren't, because totalitarianism is inherently unstable in the long term.

Oh, and non-interventionists do not reflexively oppose WWII. There we followed the letter and spirit of the Constitution and declared war on Germany and Japan. that's a different kettle of fish altogether. You're justifying your position on a worst-case basis--the entire World eaten up by Islam, or China, or Nazi Germany--which is extremely unlikely.

If we had not stood up and defeated the Barbary pirates, France and Italy (or even England) would not have risen to the occasion in our absence.

Again, the Barbary pirates is not an issue for non-intervensionism. Well, not a serious issue. Our tribute payments, however, certainly did encourage them to continue.

I'm not talking about just letting an American cargo ship just swing in the breeze.

137 I like unicorns.  Does anyone else like unicorns?

138 Who and what we are makes us a prime target.

The fallacy of the Michale Schuers and Ron Pauls of the world is that we can separate what we do from who we are.  It doesn't matter if 'they' hate us for what we do as opposed to who we are. The two are intertwined and always will be.

To say we can simply come home and cover our heads in the sand was wrong 65+ years ago and it's wrong today, both in a moral and practical sense.

That we are still debating this after the lessons of World War II and the Cold War shows just how alluring the stupidity of isolationism is.

139

the entire World eaten up by Islam, or China, or Nazi Germany--which is extremely unlikely.

This guy is starting to make sense! 

140

Me too.  For example, I want us to pull out of South Korea.

I also think we should pull out of South Korea.

But dare not call me a non-interventionist. Were I President, I'd go to war over Taiwan if China dared to cross the strait, and some of my CIA's top priorities would be Lebanon and Cyprus, to wit - eventually getting the muslims out of both entirely.

141 Slublog: "Well, perhaps you can explain how a guy who is polling sub-1% in the polls changed the hearts and minds of the other candidates and the national debate over immigration."

I don't know where he's polling, but he's definitely considered on the south side of second-tier so far. I support him but am not averse to several others of the GOP (Hunter, Fred!, Gingrich, Romney) even though the GOP really isn't what I remembered it to be. I think I can legitimately blame Bush for that now.

As to hearts and minds, Tancredo was pressing this issue when it wasn't popular... a lone voice howling in the darkness of the political landscape. As he became the lead Congressman for the immigration caucus, others started to follow both because the illegal alien situation deteriorated and because constituencies started to notice that he was challenging 1) the status quo and 2) the politically correct position that to alter entrenched policy was "racist" or "bigoted."

Tancredo's biggest and most notorious claim to fame was his leadership for controlling illegal immigration, and because it was such a tough fight, he dedicated himself to it at the expense of other issues. That could be his undoing not because he isn't a bright, honest guy but because he seems, perhaps validly, too single issue a candidate and not particularly charismatic. IOW, he's not the newly classical politician.

With Tancredo's having taken the risk previously, and politicians noticing the issue resonate without constituencies ready to hang them for the un-PC stance, most have decided to adopt Tancredo's position, by and large, and incorporate it into their platforms. For conservatives and some liberals, he gifted to political debate the opportunity to address this pathetic mess. That's where Tancredo deserves considerable credit. The public was increasingly mad but didn't have a political conduit to channel their anger. Now most everyone has the "no amnesty" position and can campaign on it as well as the other things they glommed on to previously. No Tancredo, no immigration reform.

142

>>I like unicorns.  Does anyone else like unicorns?

If a unicorn can make an argument that is circular enough, he can put his horn in his own asshole.

143 Does anyone else like unicorns?

I hear unicorns are breaking strongly for Ron Paul, so I have to say no, I don't like unicorns.

If I see exit polling to the contrary, I may revise my opinion.

144

<blockquote>I still don't agree with culling the herd based on polls. The Pajamas Media polls dropped Paul because he's below 1%, but they include Fred! even though he's not even announced. That's daft to me.</blockquote>

How so?  If Fred? is polling well he should be included until/unless he comes out and says he is not running.  By your reasoning, they probably shouldn't include any other candidates, either, given that any of them could drop out, and sooner or later, most of them will.  OTOH, if things went south for Fred? and he begun polling as badly as Tommy One-Note or Sideshow Ron, then I agree it would be daft to include him in polls.

145

It is a circular argument--we're interventionist because we're big, and we're big because we project our power. One serves the other. Take away interventionism and we shrink. When we shrink, we become a lesser target. How much lesser may be debatable, but it is lesser.

How can you not see how insane that is? Precisely! Except we do not become a smaller target, we become a tastier and more acquirable target.

As we shrink from the world, the world (infantilized by or our presence) will grow in our place. Our enemies will grow through hegemony over the places we used to have it, as we shrink from not having it.

Until such time that they are more powerful then us.

Then they will have the ability to exert hegemony ON US! The ability they lack right now. The ability (not the will and desire) that stops them by and large. And then, when they have to ability to do so, they will do so.

And then we go "Oh shit". You're advocating we lay down on our backs and stop being the most powerful country in the world, and you see no problems.

I'm not talking about just letting an American cargo ship just swing in the breeze.

What about letting American businessmen and business interests swing in the breeze? In Taiwan?

How about the oil supply, with oil being fungible and the US depending on the international oil market?

That is how we operate now. We protect our interests. Directly or indirectly.

Serbia was a mistake. As was Somalia.

But saying we shouldn't go where we have no interests is not "non-inteventionism". Because we still intervene all over the place, wherever it serves our interest to intervene, as it often does so.

146 No Tancredo, no immigration reform.
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at June 06, 2007 04:06 PM (Z0FnI)

Heh.  Considering what that term has come to mean in the past couple of weeks, I'm not sure the Congressman would like to hear that.

To those who have been concerned about this issue for a long time, Tancredo is a household name.  To others, he's just a second-tier candidate.  He's one of those guys that political geeks know, and others have just seen on television.  My problem with him is that he muddies his effective messages with some honest-to-goodness rhetorical boners once in awhile. 

I'd be willing to bet that most people, when they hear his name, think of his comments on Miami as a third-world country.

147 They aren't, because totalitarianism is inherently unstable in the long term.

Everything is inherently unstable in the long term.  But beyond that truism, there's little to reassure me.

Thousands of years of human history suggest to me that well-ordered totalitarianism is possibly the most stable form of government.

148

Non-interventionalist  = isolationist.

Ron Paul = never a damn war he would have approved of at the time. Not the Barbary Wars, not the Spanish-American War, not the Mexican-American War, not the Phillipines, not WWI, not WWII, probably not the Civil War.

You're gonna disagree with me, but that is what this guy is.

He probably would have supported the War of 1812 though. A.K.A. The Stupidest War Ever.

149 Rho, you are delusional if you think rest of the world will leave US alone if US withdraws from the world stage. I don't know if anybody noticed it, but a few days back, some Chinese journal made a statement that the American continent belongs to China, because Native Americans, who came here first, came from China. They would love to get their hands on a continent rich in Mineral resources, arable land and large bodies of freshwater. They could not have made that claim, unless it was approved by some long-term strategic planner sitting in some basement in Beijing.

150

Tancredo KNOWS he will not be President. He is trying to do something about immigration. That is all.

I can't claim to understand his methods, but I fuckin admire his motive. Stop this Shamnesty nonsense and illegal immigration.  He's an immigration hero.

He's now, by the way, no longer going to be campaigning in Iowa and New HAmpshire, and instead using his Presidential vehicle to target amnesty bill supporters in republican districts with threats of primary challenge.

He knows what this is about and so do his supporters.

And he's doing exactly what many of us want done - Primary the shamnesty assholes. He, unlike you and me, can actually give them some trouble. And that's what he's all about - being a hemmorhoid on the ass of Amnesty.

He's like our own little Tazmanian Devil that just whirls around and breaks shit for us when we get pissed. God bless him. Great guy.

151 Entropy:
But once we are done being a hegemonic empire, they have the ability to start thier own hegemonic empire in the places we leave. They have the ability to be hegemonic over Cuba and hegemonic over Kuwait

That's a stunning admission. D you suggest that the U.S. is an empire? And do you suggest this is a good thing? And would you say that our empire is more or less likely to be a target of terrorism?

Tushar D:
So we have to hang our non-interventionist jacket, and start Military cooperation with Vietnam etc. India has been working with Vietnamese Army to help update their warmaking capabilities.

I was not aware of that, and it's a good point. I wouldn't put India defending their borders by allying with neighboring countries in the same basket as the U.S. sending billions in foreign aid to both Israel and Egypt at the same time, though. But you do make a compelling point.

Dave in Texas:
Who and what we are makes us a prime target. And it always will.

That's nonsense. Or it's an imprecisely worded admission completely opposite of what you intended. I have no doubt that radical Islam does not like our non-Sharia society. But who and what we are--the biggest target on the block--is why they focus on us, so that much is true.

Sandy Berger:
Call me daft if you want, but our weapons of war are the only reason China hasn't invaded Taiwan. And I doubt they'd stop there.

Taiwan is valuable because it's a major trading partner with the U.S. It stops being valuable if China invades and we no longer trade with them. Also Hong Kong managed to be absorbed by the narrow-eyed bastards in Beijing without too much muss and fuss. Would I like it if Taiwan became a Chinese fief? No, but I'm not sure why it's our problem.

And in response to everybody in toto, we've been practicing these interventionist policies for a long time. You've clearly justified them to yourselves, and that's fine. But they did eventually result in 9/11. We hadn't spent 50 years minding our own business. We can argue to what level the effect was dependent on that particular cause, but we were off-and-on aggressive in our protection of American interests abroad, and we were attacked by terrorists on our homeland on 9/11.

From that we've taken the lesson that we need to be more involved in international affairs, to the extent of waging a pre-emptive war in Iraq. Maybe that will work. I certainly hope so, or a lot of money and blood has been spent chasing rainbows. But I don't think it's wise to discount that our actions only further the abilities of terrorist recruiters to point to us and say, "see, we told you so!"

I don't want an American empire. I certainly don't want an American empire at the expense of my freedoms and liberties. I don't feel safer now, and I certainly don't feel safer traveling to many parts of the world where my mere Americanism makes me a legitimate target in the minds of many. I really, really don't feel safer when my wheelchair-bound grandmother gets an anal probe from our shiny new expensive DHS.

And, in the end, if Hillary/Obama/whoever manage to get elected, your beloved interventionist foreign policy will be something new and different.

152 It's not fair to lump in the Swiss with the weak-kneed Ice-backs

1) The swiss might be neutral, but they have a very active defense oriented military. All swiss men have to serve in the military, and after service they have to serve in the equivalent of the swiss national guard (into their 40's i think).

2)As a result, many, many Swiss households have automatic weapons (military issue), and the Swiss government issues sealed packs of ammo to reservists to use in case of invasion or emergency. Riflery is one of the big hobbies among the Swiss as well.

3) the swiss military is purely defense oriented, so they do stuff like train the infantry on exactly how and where to set up to defend a mountain pass, etc.  They also have an extensive system of underground command bunkers, and even underground air hangers (which use highways for runways).

4) The Swiss mandate the construction of fallout shelters in the building codes, so many homes, offices, or municipal facilites are actually equipped and stocked for a nuclear attack. They are still doing this, even though the cold war is long over.

Basically, Switzerland is armed to the teeth, and geared up to resist any invader. Which is one reason that even Hitler thought they were not worth the trouble of invading. 

Now obviously, what works for the Swiss wouldn't work for the US, but they are at least not frenchlike in adopting an accomodating submissive posture.

I will also add that their political system has some great merits too:  the power of the veto is held by the public, not the executive. So basically any goofy legislation can be overturned by a majority vote by the public. If such a system were in place in the US, we wouldn't have to worry about that godawful Shamnesty bill, and many of the other moronic pieces of legislation that come out of Congress.

153

.. and rho completes the dive.

6.5

154 Would I like it if Taiwan became a Chinese fief? No, but I'm not sure why it's our problem.

It's not about Taiwan per se, it's about drawing a line in the sand and saying that China can't aggressively expand any more.  It's the same thing that NATO did with the USSR.

Why do I need to explain this?

155 But they did eventually result in 9/11.

The people who committed 9/11 are murderers by nature.  What you're really saying is better somebody else than us.  In otherwords, appease the terrorists rather than confront them.

156

That's a stunning admission. D you suggest that the U.S. is an empire? And do you suggest this is a good thing? And would you say that our empire is more or less likely to be a target of terrorism?

I'm fast and loose with my words. Want me to start defining the US true or false as "empire", we need to talk about what tthese words mean.

We are hegemonic. I say that. I say it's "country nature". ALL countries are, to the FULL extent they have any ability to do so.

Even Isolationist Japan - they were isolationist.

Yah...they were isolationist because they were internationally weak and didn't have the ability to exhert hegemony on ANYONE. So they shut themselves off from any of anybody elses hegemony either. And as soon as they restrengthened, and achieved hegemonic capability? Why - they stopped being isolationist and started exherting it, of course!

We are hegemonic and it is a good thing.

Empire? No. We are not an empire, not in any historic definition of the word. I'm reffering to our global influence (aka hegemony) in a cheeky way.

And would you say that our empire is more or less likely to be a target of terrorism?

Depends on too many things to say. Terrorism from who? And who (in our empireless world) has a bigger threat/opportunity ratio then us?

As I said - it's a "I want to be the last one eaten" strategy NOT a "I don't want to be eaten at all" strategy. We can certainly minimize our exposure by shielding ourselves behind the bodies of others. Absolutely.

I don't want to be the last one eaten. I want to not be eaten at all.

And that means rather then hiding behind the next guy who'll get eaten, it means teaming up with him to take down the tiger while he's still around to team up with, before we're the last ones left. You need a team to take down a tiger.

157

Don't know who this is attributed to but some smart person summed up the world as thus:

90% of the world's population are sheep and the other 10% is split between the wolves and sheepdogs.

Fortunately for the world, the United States foreign policy has been made up of mostly sheepdogs.  Unfortunately, many of the sheep cannot distinguish between a wolf and a sheepdog.

158

Would I like it if Taiwan became a Chinese fief? No, but I'm not sure why it's our problem.

Dude! Very simple:

Because it is economically bad for us to lose Taiwan as a trading partner, & because it is all manner of bad for us for China to recieve rapid cash infusions.

159 Maybe rho is right.

It's not like Americans doing the hard work of manning the front lines against tyrannical regimes bent on enslaving the world ever actually created one of the longest stretches of relative peace and prosperity previously unknown in human history.

No, it's not like we have over a half-century of proof that American involvement in the world makes the world and more importantly America a better place.

No, let's give rho's fantasy world a shot. I mean, what's the worst that could happen? It's not like we've ever tried retreating from the world and found it lead to a World War or anything.

160 Slublog: Heh. Considering what that term [immigration reform] has come to mean in the past couple of weeks, I'm not sure the Congressman would like to hear that.

The thing is everyone knows that "reform" coming from Tancredo truly is, or they should. If they don't, then that contradicts any perception that the public has any inkling on how to make an informed decision or can collectively provide wisdom. No doubt the concept of "comprehensive reform" is damnable coming from this Executive and Legislative, but no one can blame Tancredo for screwing things up so royally... unless one's objective is to perpetuate the morass.

Can he step in it every once in a while? You bet. But I believe him when he says something, that he says what he thinks and doesn't obsess too much with the punditry. I can't say that about most candidates running on either side of the aisle. The thing is everyone has missteps. They're just better at the game, for better or for worse.

Frankly, I'm tired of the game and find so much of it disingenuous prattling, so I find Tancredo and Fred! (his "campaign" so far, anyway) refreshing. Tancredo won't be President, likely not even Veep, but I'll support him and a few others as the field thins. If he wants to rail about the deterioration of certain cities due to endemic failures, I'll listen. Hopefully others will too and they'll be able to validly contribute to the nation's wisdom.

161 Tushar D:
Rho, you are delusional if you think rest of the world will leave US alone if US withdraws from the world stage.

To be honest, I'm less worried about Chinese claims on American soil than the Mexicans. As somebody funny once said, not only did we steal half of the U.S. from Mexico, we stole the half with all the roads.

If you think I'm suggesting that American has to roll over if the Chinese try to invade, you're delusional. I am suggesting that simply because some Chinese journal suggested annexing California does not mean we have to prop up some nutbag dictator in Burma so that the Chinese have something to worry about other than reconquista.

Entropy:
Then they will have the ability to exert hegemony ON US! The ability they lack right now.

Maybe. If China wants to get too big for its britches, the Russians will have something to say about that first.

What about letting American businessmen and business interests swing in the breeze? In Taiwan?

Unless you're advocating the U.S. military protecting every American business overseas, I don't see the relevancy. The nascent American shipping industry passing unmolested on the high seas through the Barbary states in late 1700s to early 1800s isn't quite comparable to a sneaker factory in Taiwan.

.. and rho completes the dive.

Is that on a 10 scale, or does diving score like figure skating?

162

It's not like we've ever tried retreating from the world and found it lead to a World War or anything.

No. It's NOT like we have.

I don't think America has EVER made any serious attempt at an isolationist or non-interventionist foreign policy. We've NEVER succumbed to that line of thinking. It never existed. We can't go "back" to such a policy as we were never there.

For good reason.

But you'll be hard pressed to find a period when America didn't have Marines somewhere on foreign soil. We have been actively engauged in the world and fighting for our interests ever since our inception. We've had some varied amount men in combat situations for centuries straight and still counting.

163 Respectfully, that's not an accurate characterization of Mormon belief in Jesus Christ.

That's right, you seem to be forgetting that I handed licorice out to the Indians just before the Mayflower landed.

164 Would I like it if Taiwan became a Chinese fief? No, but I'm not sure why it's our problem.

Because the Taiwanese have been our regional allies for over five decades, and at the very least, it would be poor form to toss them over the side like yesterday's garbage.

165 Entropy...

The US was pretty isolationist in the inter war years. Yeah, there were some Marines in Nicaragua and such but that wasn't really where the game was being played, was it?

Isolation was a perfectly honorable position after WWI in my mind. We did our bit and figured that was that.  Today's isolationists don't have the benefit of denying that there's no historical precedent to look to. The Ron Paul's and rho's of the world are simply asserting they are right in the face of historical evidence to the contrary.

166

Rho,

I did not give the Chinese example to imply that China is planning an invasion, and we should prepare to defend. It was an example of intentions v/s ability. China has all the intentions, but lack the ability - as of now. But they are building up their capability so fast, it should make US strategic planners very worried.

167 Fortunately for the world, the United States foreign policy has been made up of mostly sheepdogs.  Unfortunately, many of the sheep cannot distinguish between a wolf and a sheepdog.

My analogy is that the USA, Britain, and Australia are the only adults on the planet, while the rest are either whiny, rebellious teenagers (i.e. France, Sweden, Germany) or children (the third world).

168 rho...

Following up on Tushar's point let me ask you this.

If we pulled our troops out of S. Korea and Japan, would that make East Asia more secure or less secure?  Would the N. Koreans and the Chinese lessen their efforts to exert influence or seek to fill that vacuum in our absence?

169 I am wondering if it will be a good idea to have an Indian Naval ship full of nuclear tipped cruise missiles set sail for Russian far eastern ports for naval exercises, only to be apprehended by Taiwanese Navy. They could keep the missiles, and return the ship. Something to give nightmares to China.

170

Maybe. If China wants to get too big for its britches, the Russians will have something to say about that first.

Dude...you're not really even arguing with me.

You're pretty much agreeing with me, but endorsing what I warn against. You're pretty much just endorsing the "get eaten last" strategy of hiding behind other threats and minimizing your risk/opportunity ratio.

Basically the whole idea security through non-interventionism, is security through a mixture of posturing and appeasement, keeping yourself down the priority list of your enemies so that they're attacking someone else instead.

I mean...that's exactly what I said about Switzerland and Sweden. They survive because their enemies are too busy dealing with Britian and the US to worry about them just yet (but had the US and Britian lost, they would have been boned, and their security lies in OUR hands not theirs).

Instead of infantalizing the world you want to infantalize the US. Our security will not be in our direct control. Actually, it will rest on Russia's ability to stalemate China over who gets to abuse us first, and we'll remain unmolested while they bicker.

I don't think that's a good idea.

This whole ideology seems very...European.

Doesn't work well for them. Peace dividends or no.

And their security depends on US, and while I trust us with them, if you were to reverse this situation, I don't think I trust them with us.

171 Drew:
It's not like Americans doing the hard work of manning the front lines against tyrannical regimes bent on enslaving the world ever actually created one of the longest stretches of relative peace and prosperity previously unknown in human history.

Very patriotic, and not entirely incorrect. But how arrogant is it to assume that the world wants our protection? They certainly accept it, but it's not like they have many choices.

So long as we're talking about causes and effects, our manning the front lines has allowed much of Europe to descend into various experimentations with socialism, making them weaker and more dependent on our aid. Oh, and more susceptible to Islamification than they would be otherwise, IMO.

Maybe you're willing to sacrifice your liberty and freedom and our soldiers' lives so that the world can purportedly be safer. I'm not. If Shitcanistan wants to live the good life, they can open a Wal-Mart like everybody else.

172 Tushar reminds me that we need to strengthen whatever ties we have with India.  When push comes to shove, I want the world's most populous democracy on our side.

173

I mean you do realize -

Russia doesn't like China's designs on us.

This is only realistic, IF, we are weaker then the Russia and China.

Otherwise, Russia and China, seeing us as a bigger threat potential and possibly also a greater reward potential with our ecnonomy and wealth...they would team together to defeat us.

Unless we are the weak link. Then they might, indeed, side with us against each other, and protect us with their hegemony.

But that depends on us being weaker then both of them, or at least 1 of them. And that puts control outside our hands in theirs.

And if it doesn't turn out exactly how you like it, we will get our asses conquered and occupied with your crazy ideas.

174

(hint: Romney is now a member of the NRA. He increased the number of types of guns legal in MA. He changed laws regarding hunters carrying loaded weapons. I'd say your arsenal is safe.)

Romney joining the NRA was yet another blatantly obvious example of political pandering.  What next- McCain joining the Minuteman Project?

And considering that my arsenal consists of several semi-auto firearms including "assault weapons" that you so fear (not to mention a scoped "sniper rifle" capable of piercing police bullet resistant vests from hundreds of yards away, aka a deer rifle), I'd say that it wouldn't be safe if a RINO like Flipper Mitt had his way.

As far as agreeing to disagree on a civil right enshrined in the Bill of Rights?  Fuck you.  Fuck you, fuck Rosie O, fuck Chuck Schumer, fuck Mitt Romney and anyone else who fears and distrusts the American people greatly enough to want to disarm them.

A man who's beliefs change with the political wind ultimately believes in nothing.  Flipper Mitt is simply another huckster telling you what you want to hear in order to gain power.  Thankfully, enough people seem to see through the act to make it unlikely he'll get the nomination.

175

That is how this conversation started, after all.

Ron Paul's tax policy and a quarter will buy you a cup of coffee because that doesn't much matter if we get invaded and conquered by a foreign country.

And that is the logical predictable eventual outcome of his policies.

176

We've struggled our way through history during periods where we could not garauntee our safety through military superiority.

But never by choice. Never in all of history has a country willfully reduced itself in such a way. It's perverse.

Coming from a conservative this is some downright postmodern shit.

177 Christopher Taylor wrote:

Respectfully, I oversimplified the statement, but absolutely Mormons do not believe in the Jesus Christ of the Bible or what Christianity teaches him to be as the substitutionary atonement who is our salvation as God incarnate.

If the Wiki definition of substitutionary atonement is correct, I disagree.

Please see Moroni 10:32-33 for an example from the Book of Mormon. There is a quote from the location I linked earlier, "He gave His life to atone for the sins of all mankind. His was a great vicarious gift in behalf of all who would ever live upon the earth." There are many references to the LDS views on the Atonement of Jesus Christ here.

Mormons diverge from many Christian denominations on several points. For example we don't believe the Nicene Creed to be correct. Despite those differences, we love Christ and believe in him as Savior, Redeemer and Judge. I'd be very happy to discuss further in an open thread or some other forum if you'd care to.

--bonhomme

 

178 Drew (and Tushar D):
If we pulled our troops out of S. Korea and Japan, would that make East Asia more secure or less secure?

China has the ability now. China has nukes, and they've got a billion Chinamen. You arm a billion of anybody with frozen waffles and you've got a significant army. China has the ability, they merely need the motivation. Invading the U.S. would be hugely expensive and an unattractive option, but should the Chinese feel threatened by American meddling or support for dangerous internal (or external) agitators, an expensive invasion becomes more likely, not less.

But to address Drew's question, an immediate pullout of our troops in Korea would make it less stable. But I don't think that's really an option on the table, to immediately call home every troop. But to begin phased withdrawals from our bases on a set timeframe, to allow the local governments to stand up and replace us? More secure, I'd say. Nobody fights like somebody defending their homes, and nothing spurs interest in a robust national defense like when the playground protector calls it quits.

179 But how arrogant is it to assume that the world wants our protection? They certainly accept it, but it's not like they have many choices.

I don't give a fuck if they want it or are grateful for it, it's made America better. Did it have tremendous costs? Yes but I think we came out ahead in the deal. 

Yeah, yeah, Euro's are infantilized, true but it's not like there's a magic bullet anywhere in life that comes with all benefits and no costs.  If fears of unintended consequences are going to drive our decision making process as either a nation or as individuals then nothing will ever get done.

Do you really think America (not Europe but America) would have been better off with either a Europe at war for long stretches of the last 50 years (as was their historical want) or dominated by the Soviets?  Really, is that what you think?

180

 isn't quite comparable to a sneaker factory in Taiwan.

3rd largest economy in Asia-Pacific.  We have serious interests there, and it's not for Wal*Mart.

 

This is taking too long.  When do we get to the Joooos?

181

>>This is taking too long.  When do we get to the Joooos?

LOL!

182 Entropy:

I don't know where you get the idea that non-interventionism necessitates a weak defense. You've got us invaded and conquered by Russia and China because we don't have bases in South Korea.

I dunno, but my ideas sound a lot more reasonable than instant hegemony by China and Russia because we stop sending our money and troops around the world.

(Also, you might note that China right now owns a lot of our debt. Their economy is highly dependent on it. If America goes tits up, so does China--at least the parts of China where all the cars and skyscrapers are. The parts where they still live with the family pig will, I imagine, carry on as before.)

183

Jackstraw, I like Romney and would support him for President, but your assertion that the Assault Weapons Ban kept AK-47s off the streets is just completely uninformed.

During the ban, you could buy fresh out of the crate AK-47s, as long as they didn't have a standard pistol grip or a bayonette lug. If I showed you a picture of a pre-ban and post-ban AK-47, you would hardly have been able to tell the difference.

The AWB was ridiculous legislation meant to fool non-gun owners.

184

Well said Ace, "nasty old man" pretty much sums up McCain. 

Romney would be a good president if there isn't a war on and for all of Thompson's media savvy charms, he is really untested.

Rudy, while not perfect, is the kind of strong leader that a country at war needs. 

The rest of the field are only qualified for jobs in Congress.

185

they've got a billion Chinamen. You arm a billion of anybody with frozen waffles and you've got a significant army.

China is not as tough as they look. In war, numbers alone confer no advantage.

The more of them their are, the easier it is for us to kill them. FINALLY we get to untie the arm behind our back and unleash the big guns.

186 But to begin phased withdrawals from our bases on a set timeframe, to allow the local governments to stand up and replace us? More secure, I'd say. Nobody fights like somebody defending their homes, and nothing spurs interest in a robust national defense like when the playground protector calls it quits.

rho...
Yes because getting the Japanese and the Koreans into an arms race not just with China but each other (you do know they aren't too fond of each other, right?) will work out so well for us.

Emotionally I agree with you and would love to say fuck'em all but in the long run won't help us.  To reach out across the sanity divide I offer you this...I am not in the least bit interested in intervening in Africa quite simply because there's nothing in it for us.  Yeah, let's send 'em some money and medicine and if other countries want to fight to keep the peace I am willing to give them a lift and provide some support but I don't want to get bogged down in Darfur or wherever.

And no, it's not because I hate the black people but because America's well being isn't at stake in Africa. America's well being is most definitely at stake in a functioning Europe, Asia and the Middle East (though functioning has a different meaning there).

Quite frankly, I am not willing to outsource the stability of these regions that we need to the morons who live there.

187 instant hegemony by China and Russia

Who said anything about "instant"?  I'm criticizing the long-term folly of your thinking.  In the short-term, it works great.

Anyhow, I'm just repeating myself at this point.

188

 I think, they liked his refusal to distance himself from the Church of Mormon, but I have a sneaking suspicion some were reassured to learn that Mormons do in fact believe in Chirst.

The Church of Mormon?  Chirst?

Dang, Ase.

189

Romney would be a good president if there isn't a war on and for all of Thompson's media savvy charms, he is really untested.

Rudy, while not perfect, is the kind of strong leader that a country at war needs. 

I think you've got it completely backwards. Rudy being pro-immigration, anti-gun, and pro-choice leads me to believe that he will take the country club, politically correct line on the war. Just because he got angry at some rich Saudi prince after 9/11 doesn't mean he'll be willing to enter into an unpopular war with Iran when the time comes.

How exactly does Rudy intend to defend America when he's a supporter of open borders and sanctuary cities?

190

Ultimately, party regulars want to hear you endorsing party-consensus positions. They'd rather that a candidate would have always held such views out of unshakable conviction, but if a fudger who supports them now is a satisfactory choice.

You've got me pegged, unfortunately.  And the Bush Administration has made me a little more favorable of politicians who are scared of the base and willing to pander to us.  I really wish Bush were pandering to us right now on immigration, for instance.

191 Remember a few months ago I said Mitt could never win because people would constantly mischaracterize Mormon beliefs to make them seem way out of Christian orthodoxy (whatever that is), especially those who identify with the Evangelical movement?

Exhibit A:  Christopher Taylor who presumes to tell a Mormon (bonhomme) what Mormons believe and in absolute terms.

There are plenty of Christopher Taylors out there, telling conservative voters what Mormons believe despite not being a Mormon or having any real understanding of our church, even though there are plenty of easily obtained documents and official statements in which the divinity of Christ is affirmed, sustained and supported with the appropriate Biblical references.

Please, Christopher, do tell me what else I believe. I

192

<i>Respectfully, I oversimplified the statement, but absolutely Mormons do not believe in the Jesus Christ of the Bible or what Christianity teaches him to be as the substitutionary atonement who is our salvation as God incarnate.</i>

Respectfully, you couldn't be fuller of crap if you pumped sewage into your mouth with a firehose.

Respectfully.

193 Drew:
Do you really think America (not Europe but America) would have been better off with either a Europe at war for long stretches of the last 50 years (as was their historical want) or dominated by the Soviets? Really, is that what you think?

You're asserting things that are unknowable. I think what Europe does is primarily a matter that concerns Europeans, not Americans. I think Darfur would be a better place if it were an American colony--doesn't mean I support an invasion.

Did it have tremendous costs? Yes but I think we came out ahead in the deal.

I know you're not suggesting that 9/11 was a worthwhile price to pay, but it certainly is included in our costs for our foreign policy decisions.

We've struggled our way through history during periods where we could not garauntee our safety through military superiority.

You're still confusing one with the other. A strong military and an interventionist foreign policy are not inexorably intertwined. We can have the strongest military in the world, and that makes us a mighty nation. We can project that military power, and that makes us interventionist.

I know you don't speak for everybody, but I find it quite telling that you both admit and promote American hegemony and American militarism. This means that Ron Paul wasn't "crazy" or a "crank" because he said what he said, it means you know he's right, but you don't like to be told so. Dr. Paul is right--we act like an empire and project our military force--and you seemingly agree. You assert it's worth it, but you can't then deny that the terrorist's claims are hokum.

Dave in Texas:
I know it's common for the peanut gallery to start clamoring for the litany of AoS tropes to be trotted out, but I'm really trying to have a serious discussion here. I think it's been worthwhile, and I've enjoyed it, but if you really insist on mediocre reruns:

Value-Rite vodka
bbeck's tits
Cedarf*rd Cedarf*rd Cedarf*rd
The guys get shirts!
D&D, Monster Manual, Rust monster? Lamest evar
Chuck Norris
Dick Cheney's cock
Fred!'s cock
John Boton's mustache
and your favorite, the JOOOOOOOs

Happy?

194 You're asserting things that are unknowable. I think what Europe does is primarily a matter that concerns Europeans, not Americans.

Two points:

1- The only thing I asserted that America has enjoyed unparalleled prosperity in the last half century or so. Do you disagree with that?  You can assert that it would have happened without our involvement in the world or that it would have been even greater without our worldwide interests but you can't prove that. You are saying we should take it on faith that what you say is true. It seems to me that since you are the one arguing for a change of course the burden is on you to prove things will be better or at least not worse.

2- You keep saying Europe or Asia or the Mideast is their problem and not ours. Do you really believe we have no interest in what happens in those parts of the world?  Do you honestly believe our prosperity is unconnected to any other part of the world?

Seriously?

195

I know you're not suggesting that 9/11 was a worthwhile price to pay, but it certainly is included in our costs for our foreign policy decisions.

What foreign policy decision would that be? Preventing genocide of the Balkan muslim? Liberating Kuwait? Admonishing Russia for Checnya? Giving billions to Egypt and the PLO?

196 Rho,

You have not been paying attention to Chinese-Russian relationships lately. They have become closer and closer, to the point of military cooperation. An explicit goal in this is to counterbalance the United States.

Just look at their behavior on the Security Council for an example.

197

I'm really trying to have a serious discussion here.

Ok, fine.  The Jewish state.

 

Serious enough for you?

198 Drew:
And no, it's not because I hate the black people but because America's well being isn't at stake in Africa

I'd never suggest such a thing, but various people seem quite content to suggest I'm an anti-Semite, or a conspiracy crank, or in a militia or something.

Yes because getting the Japanese and the Koreans into an arms race not just with China but each other (you do know they aren't too fond of each other, right?) will work out so well for us.

I have no idea how it will work out for us, but again, I fail to see how the Chinese, Koreans and Japanese defending themselves from each other necessarily impacts us. I know that right now the Japanese and Koreans somewhat resent us as occupiers, and that China sees us as their primary threat merely by our presence there. I'm fully aware of the tensions between the countries, but we've got those tensions now. And if it goes pear-shaped, it's now our fault. And, therefore, our repsonsibility to put the pieces back together.

Just as I'm not thrilled with Democrats spending my money on Katrina refugees in strip clubs, I'm not thrilled with Republicans spending my money to rebuild a nation merely because our military was there when it was knocked down. It seems that both parties support big government, but they merely disagree with which bits get to grow. So we get bigger national offense when the Republicans are in power, and bigger welfare state with the Democrats are in power.

You know what? There isn't a dimes worth of difference between the two, when you get down to it. Both express an unjustifiable faith in the ability of government to do the right thing, rather than the political thing.

199 Just FYI, the true, official name of the "Church of Mormon" is "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints."  I don't believe that's been mentioned here yet, and I'm not sure that everyone is aware of that.

200 You know what? There isn't a dimes worth of difference between the two, when you get down to it. Both express an unjustifiable faith in the ability of government to do the right thing, rather than the political thing.

What nonsense.  What was that about wanting a serious discussion?

201 rho,

I missed this bit of you comment...

I know you're not suggesting that 9/11 was a worthwhile price to pay, but it certainly is included in our costs for our foreign policy decisions.

No, 9/11 is not part of the costs of doing business. 9/11 is the result of a band of homicidal maniacs who are adherents of an expansionists religion that was founded by the sword and continues to follow that strategy to this day.  If you think 9/11 is the first or only violent act committed in the name of Islam with the intention of attacking non-believers you are dumber than I thought.

If our foreign policy was part of the reasoning process of violent Islamists then why didn't we get credit for l feeding the Somalis or saving the Kosovars?

Do the AQ types kill Shia because of their foreign policy? Do they kill fellow Sunnis because of their foreign policy?  No, they kill people because they are thugs who want power.

202 I have no idea how it will work out for us, but again, I fail to see how the Chinese, Koreans and Japanese defending themselves from each other necessarily impacts us.

rho,
I'll take that as my answer to the question I asked you (Do you honestly believe our prosperity is unconnected to any other part of the world?).

It would be fantastic if they would and did it the way the benefits us the most but that's never happened before and it won't be happening anytime soon. As I said before, I am not willing to trust the morons who live there to do the job right.

I don't know how to argue with someone who refuses to see the world as it is even though it's different then how you'd like it.

203

 I think Darfur would be a better place if it were an American colony

So what if American neo-colonialists volunteer their own lives to make it a colony, that sends vast amounts of wealth back home?

I don't think we're an empire. But I do think things have NOT gotten better since colonialism.

We're not asking you to go over there, rho. And I ain't going neither.

But if Joe Schmoe sees a business opportunity and wants to take, and GI Joe loves shooting people and wants to go defend Schmoe's business interests abroad, what is the problem, even?

204 Slogged through the whole thread to find that nobody mentioned my choice for veep even once: MN Governor Tim Pawlenty. With McCain imploding (Pawlenty is his campaign's MN chair), Pawlenty will have plenty of time to distance himself from the debacle. With his commitment to holding the line on taxes, which he has done, and his good looks and top notch debating ability, he would be an asset to any ticket, especially one with someone like Rudy. And he's young enough to be able to run for pres in 2012 or 2016.

205

I don't know how to argue with someone who refuses to see the world as it is even though it's different then how you'd like it.

I do.

You have to read between the lines on that whole "I want a serious discussion" thing.

206 Drew:
The only thing I asserted that America has enjoyed unparalleled prosperity in the last half century or so.

I don't disagree. Some of the greatest economic growth in this country occurred after 1865, when we were relatively unobtrusive on the international stage. Our economic growth, however, is almost 100% dependent on our free market, not interventionist foreign policy. Post-Civil War our growth was a factor of the industrial revolution, not our non-interventionism.



No, and you keep asking these absurd questions. You seem to be too eager to assume the worst of me.

Our prosperity is dependent on trade and a free market. A bigger, more powerful government will impact both.

207 And a waiting period to do a background check? Why is this even an issue?

Because we already have NICS?  You will recall that many states basically refused to do the initial Brady waiting period checks because they considered it an unfunded federal mandate (and the fact that no check was actually required during the Brady wait).  NICS was the solution for that problem, and it was written into Brady, but took several years to build and roll out.

Now you're telling me that NICS isn't a good idea and we still need a wait too, even though a check result can be returned in under 20 minutes?

Sorry, but I gotta call bullshit on that.  You simply want a wait no matter what.

208

rho

You have been trotting out the "big government" argument since you started.

But you do realize what a tiny portion of total US expenditure this is, don't you? I realist you're a super-idealist who makes me look like a moderate, but if this was all the spending we had to deal with, we'd hardly have any taxes at all compared to now. It would a tremendous fundemental change from what we have now.

And railing against this spending when the other spending is still going on, you does seem penny wise and dollar foolish.

209

Thanks to you guys, my erection is gone!

 

And probably never coming back.

210 Spending arguments are silly.   They always come down to "what I think is important versus what you think is important".  It's the same argument with a dollar sign in front of it.

211

No, to be fair to rho, not this time.

He thinks nothing is important at all.

212 Our prosperity is dependent on trade and a free market. A bigger, more powerful government will impact both.

All this argument has been about is your contention that we will be better off if we retreat from the world and let others take care of their own problems.  I disagree and I think the fact that we have been so prosperous while 'meddling' (as you might put it) in other people's business  shows it's important for us to be out and engaged in the world.  Did it contribute 5%, 15% or 50% to that prosperity? I don't know. All I know is it worked.

We also know that prior to WWII and all this meddling we were more or less doing what you advocate now and it didn't work out so well.

You on the other hand say if we pull back things will get better and we won't see a repeat of the past. You offer nothing but your assertion for that.  Sorry but it's not enough.

213 Drew:
Do the AQ types kill Shia because of their foreign policy? Do they kill fellow Sunnis because of their foreign policy? No, they kill people because they are thugs who want power.

I keep making this point, and I hope eventually it will stick. AQ types want to kill us, in part, because of our foreign policy. That does not mean they want to kill others because of their foreign policy.

You don't have to take my word for it, they told us as much. It may be partially just an excuse for their innate desire for conquest, but again: we are the primary target for them because we are the principal military power. Remove the foreign devil from the calcuation and they are forced to grow the Caliphate through local conquest rather than just knocking us off.

I'm really glad you think I'm dumb. That probably explains why you ask me absurd questions, but can I suggest that rather than assuming the absolute worst of me you try assuming that I'm just as patriotic and just as desirous of a happy outcome as you are?

My second quote of yours got borked, this is what it was:
Do you honestly believe our prosperity is unconnected to any other part of the world?

And my answer was incomplete. A bigger, more powerful government will often negatively impact both. Our trade with foreign nations as well can be negatively impacted by our foreign policy decisions. The price of oil is volatile, at least in part, because of what we're doing over there militarily. Fears of an Iran invasion send the per-barrel cost up recently, as an example.

I don't know how to argue with someone who refuses to see the world as it is even though it's different then how you'd like it.

I'm sorry, who is it that keeps insisting that our foreign policy has no effect on terrorist motivations? Because that's a fact. How much of an effect is debatable, but it seems that the consensus here is that they merely hate us because our women don't wear burkas. Or that they're simply crazy.

And it's not me who assumes the worst motivations on people with whom I disagree. I think you're wrong, but I don't think you're evil.

So WRT seeing the world as it is, your claims towards being in the reality-based community are at the least incomplete.

214 Entropy:
He thinks nothing is important at all.

What twaddle. I think our freedom and liberty are the most important thing we have.

"Big government" isn't about spending alone at all. There's the rules and regulations imposed on the citizens by government that does the most damage.

But you are right--if we can't even agree that the defense of Germany is primarily the responsibility of the Germans, then there's zero chance that we can successfully argue that old people should pay for their own damn retirement and penis pills.

Which gets me back to the "not a dime's worth of difference" between the two parties that Slublog summarily dismissed. If utter faith in the ability of government to do right is a religion then the Democrats are Episcopalians and the Republicans are Presbyterians.

215 Remove the foreign devil from the calcuation and they are forced to grow the Caliphate through local conquest rather than just knocking us off.

In other words, appease the terrorists by staying out of their way.

216 I'm sorry, who is it that keeps insisting that our foreign policy has no effect on terrorist motivations?

My answer to you earlier about that was incomplete. As I've said before (earlier on in this thread in fact) the fallacy of the Michale Schuers and Ron Pauls of the world is that we can separate what we do from who we are.  It doesn't matter if 'they' hate us for what we do as opposed to who we are. The two are intertwined and always will be. Our foreign policy in the broadest sense is simply a representation of who we are and our values.  Of course our tactics may change and occasionally clash with our values but overall they track pretty well.

We are out in the world and sticking our noses in all parts of the world because we are a dynamic society that consumes resources, engages others in commercial and cultural trade. We have to protect those sources and trade lines. We can't do that from a Fortress America.

We are also a very idealistic nation in many ways. We don't support Israel because the Jews tell us to but because they are a liberal democracy and we aren't in the habit of seeing those destroyed by vicious totalitarian forces. It's not who we are.

So keep telling us we have to change how we interact with the world to save ourselves from the terrorists but what you are really saying is we have to change who we are. 

217 AQ types want to kill us, in part, because of our foreign policy. That does not mean they want to kill others because of their foreign policy.

It also does not mean they will stop wanting to kill us if we change our foreign policy to something more Ron Paul-ish. To assert this is sheer speculation.

AQ is not made up of "live and let live" types.  You do know that, don't you?

218 I'm really glad you think I'm dumb. That probably explains why you ask me absurd questions, but can I suggest that rather than assuming the absolute worst of me you try assuming that I'm just as patriotic and just as desirous of a happy outcome as you are?

I've never questioned your patriotism or said you don't want a happy outcome. The reason I think you are dumb is because your suggestion for how to achieve that outcome have failed before to generate that outcome and yet you want to do it again.

BTW- the majority of my disagreements with you are simply when it comes to foreign affairs. I'd be more than happy to slash the shit out of the federal budget and gut lots of departments.

219

Dear Entropy,

Please commence having intercourse with yourself.

Best regards,

RighTurn

PS: Your mother says that you are actually a ghey man. Sorry to offend.

 

220 And Islam is not a "live and let live" religion.

221

Why so much wasted discussion about a 3rd tier fringe candidate like Ron Paul?  It's like debating Ted Kennedy's abilities to take the gold medal in the decathalon in the 2008 Olympics.

222 Which gets me back to the "not a dime's worth of difference" between the two parties that Slublog summarily dismissed. If utter faith in the ability of government to do right is a religion then the Democrats are Episcopalians and the Republicans are Presbyterians.

Yes, I summarily dismissed it.

I tend to do that with bullshit.

223 Substitutionary Atonement is the concept that we are born in sin and are spiritually dead. All of us, every one, are hellbound not only because of what we do, but by our very nature. We cannot escape this state on our own, not by any means.

This was dealt with by God by Jesus Christ being both human and man, fully human, fully divine. He is the third person of the trinity, equal in power and nature with God. This would be the first place Mormons vary greatly from Christianity - the rejection of the trinity and the rejection of Christ as equal divinity with God.

When Jesus Christ came to earth in the incarnation (another point Mormons vary from Christianity), He lived a life of sinless perfection which is put to our account. That perfect life fulfills God's righteous demand that all of us be utterly sinless and perfect.

When Jesus Christ died on the cross, His death paid the price for the sins of His elect, perfectly atoning (paying for) every sin by this sinless act as the perfect, once for all time sacrifice. This dual act of substitution - perfect life we could not live and death we deserve - is the concept of Substitutionary Atonement and the essence of the Gospel.

Mormonism rejects the gospel, substituting their own version as conceived by Joseph Smith and subsequent elders and leaders in the religion.

Mormons are fine enough people, they do a lot of good, and I wouldn't have a problem with voting for a qualified Mormon. But they don't believe in Jesus Christ they way Christians do. He was just a man, he didn't die as a substitute to pay for our sins, he didn't live a perfect life in our place, he is not part of the trinity. In other words:

He was a real person who did good things. Like I said.

224 I think the following article explains why McCain (& other RINOs) are so pro amnesty:

http://www.cis.org/articles/2006/back706.pdf

225

I have a theory about Bush and McCain's support for amnesty.

I speculate that they support amnesty because they are both closet Mormons who just hate baby jesus and to destroy America.

226 It's like debating Ted Kennedy's abilities to take the gold medal in the decathalon in the 2008 Olympics.

They could change the rules so that drinking, driving a car off a bridge, philandering, bloviating and the like become the events in the decathlon.  If that happens I like Teddy's chances. A lot.

227

"American politicians are overwhelmingly pro-immigration, for a variety of reasons, and they do not always admit this to their constituents. Of those 50 legislators, 45 were unambiguously pro-immigration, even asking us at times to "send more." This was true of both Democrats and Republicans."

It's almost hard to beleive...but not quite.

Yeesh.

228 Christopher Taylor: Nicely done summary of Christian theology. But I have to ask myself: WWBB (What Would Bart Believe)?

Mormonism is not Christianity. It is, literally, a Christian heresy. Which has no bearing on whether or not I would vote for Romney. If he's the best man for the job, I'll vote for him.

229 rho-
 
A few propositions:

1) Much of our wealth is the result of foreign trade.
2) That this trade can be conducted fairly efficiently and according to rules that both sides agree on is largely dependent upon stability both inside these foreign nations and, often, in their wider regions.

Now, if you agree with those two statements, does it not follow that, in at least some cases, an interventionist foreign policy might be justified if it promotes regional stability? Are we ever allowed to protect our interests beyond our own borders?

230 I wouldn't vote for a Muslim, though. I have limits and that's one of them.

231 Has anyone seen a comprehensive listing of the questions asked of the candidates, broken down by by subject, moderator and party?  Might be interesting.

232 Christopher Taylor,

You, sir, are an idiot. Do you seriously presume to lecture me and the other LDS readers of this site on what we believe? The church could not be any clearer on the perfection and divinity of Christ. Only the willfully obtuse argue with it these days.

We believe the Biblical account of the birth, death, and resurrection of Christ. We read about His life in the same Bible you do, assuming yours is a Christian Bible. He was born of Mary, lived a perfect life, atoned for the World's sins in the Garden of Gethsemane, was crucified at Golgotha, was resurrected and appeared to Mary. Period. End. Of. Report.

You can continue your exclusionary tact but it shameful and dishonest and relies upon the words of anti-Mormons. Do you also get your news about conservatives from MoveOn.org and DU?

Oh...pray tell, to which evangelical denomination do you belong?

233

Pretty late, but..

rho, no third party can make headway in a winner-take-all system that elects people from fixed districts.  Especially in a non-parliament style system that we have.  In a parliamentarian system the executive comes from the legislature and is part of it.  Stephen Harper, Tony Blair, John Howard all had to run for parliament from a burough or riding or whatever.

Our system was designed to keep the executive out of the hands of the legislature.  So a president could be opposed to the legislature in order to slow things down.  To make parties weak, to keep a temporary majority from making itself a permanent majority.  That was the idea.  To diffuse power and keep it from pooling.

The filibuster in the Senate is a procedural rule, it is not constitutionally mandated nor is it a law.  Under a parliamentary system where the legislature and the executive mesh it would have been done away with long ago - if it would ever have been allowed to exist.  Our system is deliberately designed for two parties by keeping things in each separate part in the hands of two parties (though none acknowledged that) but designed to make things work slow to keep passion at bay.

Of course, then the senate came from the state legislatures, which kept the states with in play with a hand in the federal government.  It would be interesting to see what the variations would have been if the amendment for direct election of US senators had not been passed.

234

Uh oh, I see what's happening here.

McCain and Guiliani have entered into a deal. Whichever of them gets the nomination will choose the other for Veep.

 

Mormonism is not Christianity.

True. Nor is it an offshoot of Christianity.

It is, literally, a Christian heresy.

True. Mormonism is to Christinaity what Judaism is to Christianity.

Jesus is the Truth, the Life and the Way. He is the Son of God. Period. If you don't believe that, then guess what? You're not a Christian.

Which has no bearing on whether or not I would vote for Romney. If he's the best man for the job, I'll vote for him.

I agree 100%.

 

 

235

nothing really matters, anyone can see,

nothing really matters,

nothing really matters, to meeeeeee

- rho

- ron paul

- doofs with heads in sand

236 Newsflash:

Nobody's invading the United States unless they beat the U.S. Navy and Air Force. And on top of that, they have to do it in our home waters and air space in the Western Hemisphere.

That's going to stay true for the forseeable future no matter where the Army and Marines are, because the Navy and Air Force are capable of fighting the entire world's naval power combined as it is, without even a wartime build-up.

237 Another thing, by the beginning of the 20th century, the US was already the richest and most powerful country in the world.

It wasn't isolationist, but nor was it locked into this outmoded Cold War foreign policy that we've got now. Don't buy this bullshit that we need to be everywhere at all times to take care of ourselves.

The only reason that people can even stop us on their own home territory is because we're so confident of ourselves that we play softball against everyone nowadays. And part of the reason we play softball against everyone is because we're fighting for convoluted policies for people who don't give a damn about us and have disarmed themselves due to their American training wheels.

238 Jeremy:
Christian theology is quite firm, and quite clear, in the belief that Christ was, among other things, the last prophet -- that there would be no prophets after him. With Christ, the message was delivered, period. To believe otherwise, e.g., to believe that Joseph Smith was also a prophet, is heresy. I'm not knocking your religion. But that's the truth of the matter. LDS is not Christianity. It is a Christian heresy. Doesn't matter to me that this is the case; but, again, that's the truth of the matter.

Bart:
The relationship between Mormonism and Chrsitianity, and Christianity to Judaism, is not the same and not in the leastways similar. Neither in a theological sense nor in an actual sense. Just for starters: Judaism is not a Christian heresy nor is it considered as such by most Christian theologians, both Catholic and Protestant. If anything, Christianity is a Hebrew heresy (although I don't believe that). You can't  be a heresy if you came first. My group (RCC) believes that Christianity is the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy, and that fulfillment was accomplished by the establishment of a new convenant with all of mankind and not just the Jewish people; but that Jews are still to be honored and revered as the first people whom God chose to reveal himself to.

239 Another thing, by the beginning of the 20th century, the US was already the richest and most powerful country in the world.

Well, that's simply not true.

Aso, foreign powers may not be able to invade the U.S., but they can strike at us with, e.g., WMD. Case in point: 9-11.

240

I thought you were being facetious when you used the word "heresy."

Oh well. I stand by everything else I wrote.

241 Another thing, by the beginning of the 20th century, the US was already the richest and most powerful country in the world.

Uh-huh.  Which is why thousands of US troops fought WWI with British rifles and bombers and French machine guns, howitzers, tanks and fighters, because we couldn't build our own.

That's why US troops were training with wooden guns in 1940.


It wasn't isolationist

Woodrow Wilson! "He kept us out of war!" -- at least until he got us into a war we were completely unprepared to fight...

And remember FDR's "Neutrality Patrol'?

242

Mormonism is to Christinaity what Judaism is to Christianity.

Putting aside for the moment your subjective beleifs in the objective identity of God and his will, wouldn't that be Mormonism is to Christianity what Christianity is to Judaism??

A bunch of additional relevalations deemed heretical by the former mainstream who do not accept them?

243 Weasel words, Bart. Typical.

244

Jesus is the Truth, the Life and the Way. He is the Son of God. Period. If you don't believe that, then guess what? You're not a Christian.

Does that mean if you do beleieve this, you are a Christian?

If so:

Aren't all the Mormons saying they beleive that? Doesn't that mean that Mormonism is a denomination of Christianity?

If not:

Do you think they're lying to you?

If so:

How do you know they aren't lying about eating christian babies too?

245 Pardon me?

246 Technically, to Judaism, Christianity is a separate blasphemous religion, not a heresy. Mormonism is also kind of a blasphemy because of their strange brand of soft polytheism, but since it purports to be a Christian denomination it is merely heretical instead of a uniquely distinct religion.

247

Does that mean if you do beleieve this, you are a Christian?

Yes.

Aren't all the Mormons saying they beleive that?

No.

Doesn't that mean that Mormonism is a denomination of Christianity?

See the "no" above.

248 What's the RCC?

249 Entropy:

Re: "Putting aside for the moment your subjective beleifs in the objective identity of God and his will ..."

I'm not discussing my subjective beliefs. I'm talking about the accepted doctrine of of both Catholics and Protestants.

Re: "A bunch of additional relevalations deemed heretical by the former mainstream who do not accept them?"

That's how a group defines/deems what is heretical to their doctrine: when a breakaway group comes up with doctrine that disagrees with the original. My subjective beliefs have no bearing on this formulation.

250 Oh, the Roman Catholic Church!

251 RCC is the Roman Catholic Church. You know, what you once implied, in another discussion, was not really a Christian denomination.

Entropy: You really need refresher courses on logic and rhetoric.

252

So it's Ed Snate.

Ed, I was meaning to pass a note to you the next time I saw saying I hope there are no hard feelings between us because it appeared that you were taking a lot of my comments too seriously. Most of my comments are 50% tongue in cheek or just an exuse to couch a zinger.

Well, I now see that you do have hard feelings towards me. That's too bad, I've always liked you.

 

253 Christian theology is quite firm, and quite clear, in the belief that Christ was, among other things, the last prophet -- that there would be no prophets after him. With Christ, the message was delivered, period.

I'm very interested to see Biblical verses that support that assertion. At the very least wouldn't that mean the book of Revelations isn't prophetic? If that's true, then the Biblical prophecy school of thought isn't part of Christian theology.

254 This theological dissection of Mormonism in general and Romney in particular is very interesting but aren't we missing the bigger question...Is he a Scandi?

255 Damn, where is that hyperspace railway siding?

256 Bart:

Many thanks for your note. I thought you were being serious to me. Since that's not the case I no longer have any hard feelings toward you.

Clean slate begins now.

Thanks again.

257

Only the dead know the truth about religion.  It's too bad they can't tell us.

 

258 I'm very interested to see Biblical verses that support that assertion. At the very least wouldn't that mean the book of Revelations isn't prophetic? If that's true, then the Biblical prophecy school of thought isn't part of Christian theology.

Bart: Can you handle the response to this one? I've got to go. I have a feeling we agree on this issue.

259

Newsflash:

Nobody's invading the United States unless they beat the U.S. Navy and Air Force. And on top of that, they have to do it in our home waters and air space in the Western Hemisphere.

That's going to stay true for the forseeable future no matter where the Army and Marines are, because the Navy and Air Force are capable of fighting the entire world's naval power combined as it is, without even a wartime build-up.

You pull out of "the world" and a few things will happen.

1) With no where to put them all and nothing for them to do except stand around, you will see downsizing. You just will.

2) In 20 years time you'll have no remainding enlisted men (the grunts who shoot the guns) with any combat experience or even much mission experience. They've been sitting on bases in Texas after the End of History when we no longer need a huge military because we're not going to fight foreign wars anymore (and no one would ever DARE attack us at home). We will be green.

3) As time wears on, and the world slips away from us, we will lose our foreign trade structure. Other countries will acquire our foreign trade structure. This means less money for us to fuel that military, and more for our potential enemies.

4) As time wears on, our allies who are still ostensibly out there in the world getting dirty, will find they ever less and less use of an ally who no longer leaves his own country, and will not even honestly enter a mutual defense pact, because they will not defend other peoples countries under any circumstance. "That's your business who you choose to get your ass kicked by" we say. "Not our problem". Consequentially, we have no more allies. And we no longer share military technology. Out of neccessity, some will ally with our potential enemies in our stead and share technology with them instead.

Advance of technologies, advance of global presence and resources, increasing prosperity, pressing issues that require the construction and mobilization of large armies to be resolved, and other factors will combine to increase the strength of these actors, whoever they may be, now that we have left the stage. Potentially hostile enemies of ours.

Meanwhile at home, the exact same thing is happening only in reverse.

It's a systematic dismantling of our superiority and positioning. When you give away the things that make you a global military power and give them to other countries instead, you will eventually, in a generation or two, cease to be one and they will become one.

And after that, it's out of our hands. We no longer have control. Never has any country outside of maybe modern Europe willfully done this. It's preverse.

The Ron Paul non-interventionist proposal is essentially that being on top sucks ass, because it's tough work. Better we should give up all the things that make us great, and all the things we need to be great for, and then we'll just be another shmuck who won't be called upon to deal with great things because we can't handle them anymore.

He wants to trade positions with Switzerland or Sweden. Inconsequential, irrelevant, and entirely insecure save for what securities they pilfer under the umbrella of their neighbors who they don't control (god forbid their neighbors should screw it up).

And presumably, in this wonderland, with all our peace dividend, we can (just like Sweden!) engauge in wacky ideological/political expirmentation with idealistic theories that contradict human nature, except instead of the Swedish social bong circle heaven, we'll be the "No police, pay for your own security guards" pot-fueled nanoarchist libertarian dream.

I'd say minarchist, but that's unfair to minarchists who actually have a workable idea. This is nanoarchist stuff.

Doods, why not just let people pay for their own fire department when their house catches fire and there is a market need for fire-extinguishing services? Shhyeeeaaaah, man!  Sweet.

Thhhhhhkhkhkhkhkhkhkhhkhkhkhkhh

*cough*cough*

260 Only the dead know the truth about religion.  It's too bad they can't tell us.

Maybe, maybe not. In any case I wasn't discussing the truth claims of Christianity in terms of their validity. I was discussing the truth claims as doctrine and how Mormon doctrine differed from it.

261 Bart:

Also, I apologize for misinterpreting your previous remarks. My bad.

262

I'm very interested to see Biblical verses that support that assertion. At the very least wouldn't that mean the book of Revelations isn't prophetic? If that's true, then the Biblical prophecy school of thought isn't part of Christian theology.

Well, yes. The theology is, Christ was the last major prophet.

That does not rule out minor prophets. It does rule out someone changing the whole game, like Mohammed or something, or the Mormon Guy.

Revelations did not really change any existing theology. It just said how the world would end. It's prophetic, but it does not reveal anything fundemental, just details. It doesn't contradict anything Jesus said, or even add to it in terms of behavior or or divine decrees or any such thing.

It just tells us how the world will end, as if it was reciting the history of Rome, except you know...in the future, and through thick, cryptic indecipherable symbolism.

263 That Romney's a good debater. He gets high marks everytime.   Did I say , good? No , he's a master.   Yup, a master-debater ,that's him.

264

Steve

Context please.

You corrected me, by restating exactly what I said

I'm so glad I have you to think of things I allready thought of and then take credit...

265

Entropy: You really need refresher courses on logic and rhetoric.

Or, you know...stop taking my comments to other people and applying them to debates I don't even know you're having.

Either way.

266

Bart -

"No."

bonhomme -

Do Mormons beleive

"Jesus is the Truth, the Life and the Way. He is the Son of God." ?

267 Entropy wrote:
Bart -
"No."

You see, Steve, that's the way you talk to Bart.  It helps if you're holding a rolled-up newspaper at the time.

268

*262

Biblical verses were asked for.  Back up what you say.

269 Well, yes. The theology is, Christ was the last major prophet.

Yes: and in the original Hebraic sense of what it meant to be a prophet, i.e., one to whom God speaks directly and to whom, in so doing, He reveals himself, albeit in a very limited aspect. After Christ men could make prophecies that may or may not have been inspired by their faith but which were not direct communications from God and hence subject to error.

BTW, according to the Bible, Moses was the last man (apart from Christ) who God "knew face to face," that is, to whom God revealed himself physically. ("And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face"). But even at that Moses' glimpse of God's physical aspect was partial:

[20] And [the LORD said], Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.
21] And the LORD said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock:
[22] And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:
[23] And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.

You don't have to believe in this to appreciate the beauty of the words, the poetry of it. IMHO.

270 I'm not LDS (not even former), but very familiar and yes, the Mormons believe that Christ was the Son of God.  However, their conception of God is very, shall we say, different.

God is the God of THIS planet and Jesus is his son with the Heavenly Mother.

When you die, you become the God of your own planet, iff'n you're a good mormon.

They are not able to affirm the Nicene Creed as I understand, or if they do, it is on a different level of understanding (my basic benchmark for a "Christian"), and they believe that Christ came over the ocean after death and converted the Jews living in the new world (who were red because they were the sons of Ham or something like that (at this point the theology becomes too weird and I can no longer speak about how they believe certain things)).  But I do know that for Mormons, Indians are Jews, God is only the God of this planet, and there is a Heavenly Mother (though they won't ever, ever talk about Her).

271 The church could not be any clearer on the perfection and divinity of Christ. Only the willfully obtuse argue with it these days. Yes, he's god now but He was not when He was born, according to Mormon doctrine. He's not the equal of God the Father, he's not part of a perfect trinity. Ergo, you don't believe what the Christian church teaches.

You're not exactly clear on what the term "atone" means if you think Jesus "atoned for the worlds sins" on the cross according to Mormon faith. He died so that people could, by following his example, be saved and if they are perfect enough, become like Him , according to Mormonism.

Mormons are free to believe what they want. I am fine with Mormons having their faith, y'all are fine folks for the most part and a good addition to America. You're just not Christians. Why would you want to be? You have your own faith.

272 Biblical verses were asked for.  Back up what you say.

Sorry, pal. I'm a Catholic and Catholic doctrine was developed by interpreting the scripture not be taking it literally. Catholics are not scriptural literalists, i.e., we are not "Bible Christians," as the term is commonly understood. You want documentation? Read the Catholic Catechism. It's all their in black and white; all the explanations you need. You'd know this if you had anything resembling a comprehensive grounding in Christian theology. Read the Catechism and then get back to me. It's too long to quote here.

That's how I back it up, jack.

I am not sure, to the extent that I can't speak with authority, on how Protestant doctrine was formulated. I'm hoping that Bart can fill in for me on this.

273 Christopher Taylor: Well said.

Sandy Burger: Also well said, LOL! (No offense, Bart!)

274 Entropy, I just read your #259 comment. Damn! That is Think Tank stuff.

I always think of your argument style as a fragmentation bomb. You drop hundreds of precision guided bomblets on the opposition, utterly destroying their entire argument.

Slublog uses a "Five point palm, exploding heart" technique. He makes a few precise jabs. The opponent think he can walk away, but collapses after taking a few steps.

275 Ent, you're wrong about prophesying

1 Thessalonians  (Thessalonians, Thessalonians, and idle mind is the devil's toolbox . . . . (sorry, a bit of Ren & Stimpy there)

005:014 Now we exhort you, brethren, warn them that are unruly,
        comfort the feebleminded, support the weak, be patient toward
        all men.

005:015 See that none render evil for evil unto any man; but ever
        follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all
        men.

005:016 Rejoice evermore.

005:017 Pray without ceasing.

005:018 In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in
        Christ Jesus concerning you.

005:019 Quench not the Spirit.

005:020 Despise not prophesyings.

005:021 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

005:022 Abstain from all appearance of evil.

005:023 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God
        your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless
        unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.




1 Corinthians (make great leather!)

014:037 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let
        him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the
        commandments of the Lord.

014:038 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

014:039 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to
        speak with tongues.

014:040 Let all things be done decently and in order.

276

And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.

WTF? Yes...you must appreciate the beauty.

God mooned Moses.

AoS Lifestyle Original Practitioner - Yahweh.

277 Behold, my brothers! I have went unto the mountain, and the clouds parted from the sky, and I beared witness to the ass of God!

278 Yeah, we laughed at that joke too -- in 3rd Grade Sunday school

279 Ent,

You're also wrong about catholicism.

II. IN THE NEW TESTAMENT When this dawn is about to break, prophecy then long silent finds voices anew to tell the good tidings. Zachary and Elizabeth, Mary the Virgin-Mother, the old man Simeon and Anna the Prophetess are enlightened by the Holy Ghost and unfold the future. Soon the Precursor appears, filled with the spirit and power of Elias. He finds anew the accents of olden prophecy to preach penance and announce the coming of the kingdom. Then it is the Messias in person who, long foretold and awaited as a Prophet (Deuteronomy 18:15, 18; Isaiah 49; etc.), does not disdain to accept this title and to fulfil its signification. His preaching and His predictions are much closer to the prophetic models than are the teachings of the rabbis. His great predecessors are as far below Him as the servants are below the only Son. Unlike them He does not receive from without the truth which He preaches. Its source is within Him. He promulgates it with an authority thereunto unknown. His revelation is the definite message of the Father. To understand its meaning more and more clearly the Church which He is about to establish will have throughout all ages the infallible assistance of the Holy Ghost. However, during the Apostolic times, God continues to select certain instruments like unto the Prophets of the Old Law to make known His will in an extraordinary manner and to foretell coming events: such, for instance, are the Prophets of Antioch (Acts 13:1,8), Agabus, the daughters of the Evangelist Philip, etc. And among the charismata (cf. Prat, `La theologie de Saint Paul", 1 pt., note H, p. 180-4) conferred so abundantly to hasten and fortify the incipient progress of the faith, one of the principal, next after the Apostolic, is the gift of prophecy. It is granted "unto edification, and exhortation, and comfort" (1 Corinthians 14:3). The writer of the "Didache" informs us that in his day it was fairly frequent and widespread, and he indicates the signs by which it may be recognized (xi, 7-12). Finally theCanon of the Scriptures closes with a prophetic book, the Apocalypse of St. John, which describes the struggles and the victories of the new kingdom while awaiting the return of its Chief at the consummation of all things.

From the Catholic Encycolpedia

280 There's some confusion of what prophecy means here. Most people mistakenly take it to mean "guys who predict the future" when that's a very, very tiny portion of what it's about. 99.9% of Biblical and Christian prophecy is speaking the Word of God. In that sense, any pastor or evangelist is a prophet. Prophets don't speak for themselves, they say "thus says the Lord."

Roman Catholicism believes that the Church is the body of Christ on earth and thus it can expand on and add to the faith, carefully, with proper study and oversight by the Church.

Protestants believe that God is done revealing scripture, and while the world around us and the Holy Spirit within us can help us understand better what has already been revealed, there's no more new stuff coming from God.

A lot of evangelicals, particularly dispensational pretrib premillenials believe that there are more prophecies and teachings coming out and pick and choose the guys they trust.

Something to remember, the Bible gives the criteria for a true prophet and a false one in Deuteronomy. If a prophet gives a single prophecy, just one that doesn't turn out to be true... he's not a prophet. It also says to put them to death in the Hebrew civil law system, which gives you an idea how seriously it was taken. Deuteronomy also says that if a prophet says things that come true in the future but contradicts the word of God then you should ignore him (and put him to death) because he's a false prophet.

281 God continues to select certain instruments like unto the Prophets of the Old Law t

"Like unto" being the key phrase here, in the sense that they are like unto but not the same." In the sense that the Archangel Michael was "Like unto God" or "Like God" (the meaning of  his name); but not God  Himself.

Also, just a word of warning: the Catholic Encyclopedia is old and , in many respects, out of date.

282 Christopher Taylor:

Excellent. When did you get so smart? : )

283

 Ergo, you don't believe what the Christian church teaches.

There is no such thing as the "Christian Church teachings".

There is no "Christian Church". Mormons most assuredly do NOT beleive Roman Catholic Church teachings, or Greek Orthodox Church teachings, or Syriac or Maronite or Coptic teachings, or Southern Baptist teachings.

But these teachings do not all agree with each other. That does not address whether or not they are "christian".

I seem to recall a rather famous disagreement over the Filioque clause of the Nicean creed, which many Eastern Orthodox varieties of Christians do not accept.

And they did indeed excommunicate each other and declare each other heretics over it.

284 Not so smart. I have had good teachers.

And Entropy, there's as much a Christian Church as there is "physics" or "Conservatives." Differences in opinion don't change the fundamental, basic understandings and ideals of an organization. Christianity has some very basic concepts and beliefs that all Christians share, even if they disagree on other, periferal issues.

285

Ent,

You're also wrong about catholicism.

OK you people just fucking suck. Screw religion.

Right away everyone wants to be "right" and prove me "wrong" on semantics or some shit.

I'm wrong about catholicism? I don't know how the hell I managed that because, at the time you write that, I hadn't fucking even talked about any catholicism.

Riddle me that one batman?

Next McLaughlin group wannabe who tells me WRONG!! about a topic I wasn't even talking about is gonna get a shoe in has ass.

286 I seem to recall that the great dispute between Rome and Byzantium was the nature of the Holy Spirit, with Rome maintaining that it was one in being with the Father and the Son, and the Byzantines believing that is was less than the Father and the Son. Also, I think, the Byzantines eventually came to accept Rome's view. Can someone help me out here? I guess I could look this up in one of my books on the subject or at Wikipedia, but I don't want to.

287

And Entropy, there's as much a Christian Church as there is "physics" or "Conservatives." Differences in opinion don't change the fundamental, basic understandings and ideals of an organization. Christianity has some very basic concepts and beliefs that all Christians share, even if they disagree on other, periferal issues.

I didn't say anyhting that contradicted that.

The issue at hand is wether or not Mormons are a member or not, based on whether they disagree on the fundamentals or the periferal.

288

 Also, I think, the Byzantines eventually came to accept Rome's view.

Because they needed military reinforcements or faced extermination by Mohameddian hordes.

They were exterminated anyway.

289

The pope held Filoque over their heads while the Muslims banged on Constantinoples gates threatening their lives.

Basically, "accept our view and we'll send help, or die a heathen"

290 Christianity has some very basic concepts and beliefs that all Christians share, even if they disagree on other, periferal issues.

Precisely. For example, Catholics & Prots both use the Nicean Creed; both believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins; etc. If you're a Protestant who was baptized in a Protestant church and you want to become a Catholic, the Catholic Church does not require a second baptism; we recognize the validity (i.e., the saving grace) of the first baptism. Confirmation will suffice. And, at least according to Catholic doctrine (as delineated in the Catechism), we accept Protestants as our brothers and sisters in Christ. The old believe that Prots are going to hell was firmly declared null and void by Vatican II -- which incidentally confirms what Christopher Taylor said about Catholicism, i.e., "Roman Catholicism believes that the Church is the body of Christ on earth and thus it can expand on and add to the faith, carefully, with proper study and oversight by the Church."

The wars of religion, between Christians, are over, forever. At least from the Catholic POV. Okay, SSPX might disagree, but they are schismatics.

Anyway, since all Christians are brothers and sisters in Christ, it is indeed right and proper to speak of a "Christian Church."

291

Steve, many protestants do not beleive baptism is neccessary to salvation.

Now maybe you beleive if a man dies unbaptized, he goes to hell.

Does that mean he isn't Christian?

292

Or purgatory. Whatever.

Protestants don't beleive in that either.

293 Do Mormons beleive "Jesus is the Truth, the Life and the Way. He is the Son of God." ?

Yes, absolutely.

294 Just read the Wikipedia entry on the filioque (sp) clause and controversy. Interesting.

A few years ago I read John Julius Norwich's three-volume history of Byzantium. Magnificent. He discusses the filioque controversy at length.

295

Let's talk about something that isn't a giant transcendental circle jerk with everyone arguing over who gets bukkaked.

One leading Republican senator over a period of months was advising us, through a mutual acquaintance, about which mechanisms to follow and which other legislators to lobby in order to ensure passage of the amnesty propsal. In the meantime, he would speak on television about the need to "militarize" the border.  This senator was recently signled out by a taxpayer's advocacy group as a leader in "pork"-related politics.

Anyone got a clue who that might be?

 

296

Bart

Yes, absolutely.

Posted by: bonhomme at June 06, 2007 10:00 PM (QyoHn)

Now you say:

A) He lied (and frankly, I think if he's lying to us about this, we ought to wonder if he's lying about eating babies too)

B) You lied. (Et tu Bartholomew? The tiny babies??)

C) He's a Christian.

297 Catholics DO NOT believe that if a person dies unbaptized they go to hell. We believe in the concept of the "baptism of desire": As stated in the Catechsim: "Non-Christians who seek God with a sincere heart and, moved by grace, try to do His will as they know it through the dictates of conscience can also be saved without water baptism; they are said to desire it implicitly."

Catholic theologians have debated what this means and the issue is by no means settled. But according to my interpretations of John Paul II's comments on the subject, it pretty much means that good people everywhere are saved, because their goodness comes from God, who is the source of all goodness. So, Tushar, if you're reading this: no worries, man.

298 Hunter is my congressman, and I couldn't be more proud. That said, he's a better VP fit, and would serve intelligently and admirably. With Fred or Rudy or Mitt as POTUS

299

Wait. I don't understand.

Do Mormons believe the basic tenet of Christianity: Jesus Christ is their Lord and Savoir and they can only get to Heaven thorough Him, or not?

300

The particular flavor of Christianity I grew up in, agreed with Bart.

The way, the Truth and the Life, the only way, the divine Son of God who died for our sins.

Anything else, by that particular theology, is peripheral. Only this is the core fundemental.

Whatever you're wrong or right about, my old church tought that if you beleive Christ is the Son of God who died for our sins and accept his sacrifice, you go to heaven. If you do not, you don't. Everything else is ultimately details.

So...whether they like it or not, and I'm sure they don't and want to argue, their theology recognizes Mormons as saved persons belonging to the Christian religion, as a demonination and not a seperate religion then.

Now Catholics may tell me fuck that, because blahblahblah "The decree of St. Idontgiveshit in 837 is fundemental" and so Catholics do NOT recognize Mormons as Christian.

But Catholics are not the ultimate arbitors of who is Christian and who isn't, else Lutherans or Pentecostals might not be allowed either.

And those Charismatic/Pentecostals are fucking crazy. Dude you CANNOT heal people by punching them in the forehead.

Anyway...Now you've to argue what the fundemental fundementals are if you want to exclude mormons.

So don't tell me why YOU think they're going to hell. You've got to give me a reason why everyone thinks they're going to hell - or at least a majority or something. Otherwise, you're just stating your particularly denominations view based on what IT views as the "fundementals" and not speaking for the whole "Church of Christ".

Again, as a (Catholic) or whatever, (Catholic) doctrine on what is fundemental - which Baptists do not friggin agree with even though they're both Christians - does not enable you to determine which denominations are allowed to be called Christian. Because other Christians who are allready in the club disagree with you irrevocably.

 

301

So, Tushar, if you're reading this: no worries, man.

............................

Fuck all you people and all your silly religions.

302 Seriously...Vatican II made Catholicism incoherant.

303

Entropy, you remind me a lot of Wickedpinto, sometimes.

304

Dude, I just tried to step into this silly ass conversation to be a moderate voice amongst a bunch of people telling each other what other people beleive for them.

To which, I am attacked on 4 sides and told I'm wrong. Wrong for what, I don't know.

Apparently Steve things I'm "wrong" just for talking to you Bart.

Talking to Bart is now "wrong" in Catholic theology. Makes more sense then half the other stuff in there.

305 Vatican II made Catholicism incoherant.

Maybe to you. Are you Catholic?

306

And now we got Steve tell Hindus they will go to heaven according to Catholicism but Mormons are blasphemers so I quit...

I quit.

Go talk to the talking donkey or the pillar of salt or something.

307 Apparently Steve things I'm "wrong" just for talking to you Bart.

Whaaat? Where did that come from?

308 Another thing, by the beginning of the 20th century, the US was already the richest and most powerful country in the world.

Well, that's simply not true.

-And McEnroe

You've confused military power with economic and military potential. Early 20th century American already had the largest GDP in the world. It also was already the world's lead producer of coal and steel, the two largest indicators of industrial power at the time.

It didn't have massive armies and navies (though it was already picking up on the latter) because it didn't need them. Although, during the Civil War, for example, the US Navy and Army were already the largest and most modern in the world. We simply downsized both immediately after the war.

The myth of isolationism has already been covered in this thread. We were, for example, always all over the Western hemisphere. We expanded against the Indians, the Spanish/Mexicans in the southwest, and everyone else who got in our way. What we didn't do were these rigid alliance systems and stick permanent garrisons in places like Asia and Europe.

309 A few random scriptures:

Amos 3:7 Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.

We believe that God continues to act, that He is constant, and still reveals His secrets to prophets.

Numbers 11:25-29And the LORD came down in a cloud, and spake unto him, and took of the spirit that was upon him, and gave it unto the seventy elders: and it came to pass, that, when the spirit rested upon them, they prophesied, and did not cease.

26But there remained two of the men in the camp, the name of the one was Eldad, and the name of the other Medad: and the spirit rested upon them; and they were of them that were written, but went not out unto the tabernacle: and they prophesied in the camp.

27And there ran a young man, and told Moses, and said, Eldad and Medad do prophesy in the camp.

28And Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of Moses, one of his young men, answered and said, My lord Moses, forbid them.

29And Moses said unto him, Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the LORD'S people were prophets, and that the LORD would put his spirit upon them!

We believe that God has chosen to grant righteous men the spirit of prophecy and does continue to do so.

John 21:25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

We believe that God has done many great and wonderful things of which we only know a small part. We believe He will continue to reveal His wisdom when and how He chooses.

310 And now we got Steve tell Hindus they will go to heaven according to Catholicism but Mormons are blasphemers so I quit...

Look, you stupid shit, I did not say "Hindus will go to heaven according to Catholicism" nor did I say that Mormons are blasphemers.

You should quit.

311 And for the comment about using French tanks and guns...Unlike the European powers, we never had large standing armies until the Cold War period, so we hit World War I with a running start - and then severely fucked up the industrial mobilization. And still, we managed to supply in butter (if not guns) a multi-million man Army across the Atlantic ocean within a few years.

Americans simply don't realize anymore the sheer awesomeness of the fact that they can supply forces of such size anywhere in the world. Simply getting there in such force, so quickly is a massive accomplishment, let alone winning.

312 I think I saw a documentary about that Mormon desert cult..... I think it was called "Lord of Illusions"

313 How did a post on the debate turn into a thelogical discussion?

314 It just fucking did, okay?

315

316

nor did I say that Mormons are blasphemers.

You're right. I'm sorry. Heretics.

Mormonism is not Christianity. It is, literally, a Christian heresy.

Posted by: Steve at June 06, 2007 07:26 PM (Ou58e)

317 MIR:
It's called power projection, and you're right: the U.S. does it better than any other nation and it is indeed an incredible achievement.

318 Right. Heresy and blasphemy are two different breeds of cat. And I stand by what I said: Mormonism is, literally, a Christian heresy. And I use the term "heresy" in a descriptive sense not a pejorative one. You seem to think that "heresy" is always meant to be pejorative. If so, you're wrong.

319 <i>"Aso, foreign powers may not be able to invade the U.S., but they can strike at us with, e.g., WMD. Case in point: 9-11."</i>

A group of transnational terrorists attacked us. Transnational terrorists who we let in through our Visa and immigration system.

Most foreign powers are smart enough to realize by now that if they attack us openly, they're not going to survive the aftermath. Maybe China will be big enough to stupid enough to do so, but that won't be for a number of decades, if at all. They've got a number of potential problems themselves. For one, they're also surrounded by potential enemies of them and allies of us.

320 Well, MIR, I respectfully disagree. Those transnational terrorists were sponsored by ... the government of Afganistan? Iran? Saudi Arabia? Or do you think they acted alone? And the fact that they got into our country through flaws in our visa and immigration systems is a tactical/operational aspect of their victory. In other words, those transnational terrorists who were sponsored/supported/financed them maneuvered themselves tactically to penetrate our sovereign territory and thus turned it into a battle space. Also, I think Iran has been waging war against us since they seized our embassy.

321

From the outside, all you Christians look like Christians to me - Mormons included. You all profess a belief that Jesus is the Son of God, born and died to redeem humanity of sin. If that isn't the definition of Christianity, I don't know what is.

All this theological debate with some Christians telling other Christians what they do or do not believe is fucking obnoxious.

 

322 Well, nobody said you had to be here for it. And don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out, 'kay?

323

Well, nobody said you had to be here for it. And don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out, 'kay?

I'm here because I think that some of our Mormon posters are decent people who don't deserve to have their most sacred beliefs derided. If you don't like non-Christian Ace of Spaders telling you when your ass is showing, you can find some exclusive Christian blog and fuck yourself with it.

324 Fuck you too. If you read my posts you would see that I wasn't deriding Mormonism at all and that I have no problem with Mormonism; and, in that regard, I said that I would vote for a Mormon if he was the right man for the job.

Did I mention that you should go fuck yourself?

325

Steve -

You have been maintaining that Mormons are not Christian.

What I am saying is that, as you have said, who is Christian depends on the fundementals of faith only. Differences of opinions of pheripheral things create denominations of a religion. Differences on fundementals create different religions.

Now I will say that what is fundemental to the faith is what gets you saved. If you find salvation, according to any given theology, then you have the fundementals of that theology. You are a member of the same religion, and may or may not be the same denomination.

Now let's just not bring Vatican II into this at all because you've expanded salvation to such a extent that even atheists may be saved.

You can talk about things like baptism, and how protestants and catholics agree on baptism (protestant is not a denomination, it is a branch of denominations)  but that is true because many protestants (and post Vatican II, Orthodox as well) disagree with you. Unless you're going to say they aren't Christian, this isn't a fundemental.

So what needs to be looked at is what does everyone you consider christian share, what is the key point. Then, ask, do Mormons share that?

What do all the protestants and catholics and orthodox all agree on that makes them all Christian, that the mormons do not also agree on because they're not Christian?

Again, in the particular theology I was raised with, well. I've allready explained it above so scroll up if you don't know cuz I'm lagged out the ass. And mormons do seem to be Christian by that measure.

All this talk about the "Christian Church" and minor vs. major Prophets is all frankly non-sequitar, because the people you call Christians do not all agree with your position, so the fact that the mormons don't also is irrelevant. If we're gonna talk about mormon prophets we may as well talk about Catholic quasi-polytheistic Saints or idolistic Orthodox icons. It's just a big damn argument that has nothing to do with this discussion, because these things are NOT the fundementals of Christianity that we must judge Mormonism by, unless you maintain that Greek Orthodox or Baptist aren't Christian.

326

All this theological debate with some Christians telling other Christians what they do or do not believe is fucking obnoxious.

Precisely.

327

Seriously, do you know how insanely rude some of you were being to the Mormon posters by saying that they don't qualify as Christians? It's no wonder some of them ran off.

Whatever your beliefs, it seems that common human decency would prevent you from saying the most inflammatory things to people who are on your side.

328 Mormons are awesome people. We all love the Mormons.

But they are not "Christians," they are Mormons. There is a difference. Just trying to sort it out, that's all, a.v.

I wish Monty was here. He was our official AoS Religion & History expert.

329 <i>Well, MIR, I respectfully disagree. Those transnational terrorists were sponsored by ... the government of Afganistan? Iran? Saudi Arabia? Or do you think they acted alone? And the fact that they got into our country through flaws in our visa and immigration systems is a tactical/operational aspect of their victory. In other words, those transnational terrorists who were sponsored/supported/financed them maneuvered themselves tactically to penetrate our sovereign territory and thus turned it into a battle space. Also, I think Iran has been waging war against us since they seized our embassy.</i>

Actually, you know you're right that I completely flubbed the obvious. The Taliban did support them. On the other hand, I think that we could have handled Afghanistan largely on our own to the extent that was necessary. We actually told NATO, after all, that we didn't need them and then made deals with individual countries. Which was probably beside the point, since we've all seen a continent (Europe) that has a GDP as big as ours contribute a mere division to the effort (with all due respect to the British, who are an exception)...and given us a command arrangement that is positively fucked up.

I'm not saying that we don't have enemies. I'd of pounded Iran into the ground during the hostage crisis. I'm just saying that a lot of our notions of how American foreign policy should work have been on automatic for a long time and need to be reconsidered. I also think that the way that we deal with our enemies is severly diluted by our supposed need to please our supposed friends and reconcile the contradictions of such a widespread foreign policy. If you're going to be deployed so far forward in so many places, you're going to need to please people.

And even worse, when you're so positioned, you become martial welfare, making them dependent, and then making it even more difficult for you to take the chance at leaving. I don't think that our system can survive managing the world.

330

I'm a Frisbyterian.

We believe that when you die your soul goes up on the roof and you can't get it down.

331

Please excuse my aggressive language a few posts up, Steve. I'm probably creating an argumentative atmosphere where there shouldn't be one. In my opinion, telling an anonymous Mormon that they are not a Christian, even if it's what you believe, seems rude and unneccessary.

I take Mormon bashing seriously, probably because I'm such an admirer of Glenn Beck. He made me the conservative I am today.

332

Well..I don't really care if it's rude or not if it's true. If they are they are and if they aren't they aren't. It's a religion, not a treehouse club. The theology matters. Muslims and Agnostics are not Christian, no matter how bad that makes them feel, oh well.

BUT I am very interested in giving them a fair damn evaluation and not putting belifs into their mouths in order to exclude them, and see little former and lot of latter went on here.

Not neccessarily from Steve, but it's all up there.

I don't know if Bart is joking or being serious.

If he's serious he's being a tremendously dishonest ass. He layed out his criteria plain and simple and mormons meet it, plain and simple, to which he has nothing to say but quip.

Unless he's just joking..then sorry Bart.

I can't tell.

333 MIR: Agreed.

Entropy: I'm lagged out too. We can continue this discussion another day -- if adolfo will let us.

Or, we can just let it go.

334

Muslims and Agnostics are not Christian, no matter how bad that makes them feel, oh well.

Unless you believe in Vatican II. Then maybe they are

335

Well..I don't really care if it's rude or not if it's true. If they are they are and if they aren't they aren't.

I'm just saying, you don't tell a man his wife is an ugly bitch, even if that's how you see her, because it's not considered civilized. I doubt any Mormons are going to be converted to the ONE TRUE FAITH (tm) by some blog thread.

336 What happened to Monty? Did he go on active duty? Did he deploy?

Of course, I'm sure he didn't get tired of us.

337 Entropy: I'm lagged out too. We can continue this discussion another day -- if adolfo will let us.
Or, we can just let it go.

Posted by: Steve at June 06, 2007 11:32 PM (Ou58e)

Steve, I apologized for my aggressive language, I would hope that you accept that apology.

I do not apologize for calling some of your statements rude.

338

Now I'm the bad guy, Entropy?

 

If the answer to this question:

Do Mormons believe the basic tenet of Christianity: Jesus Christ is their Lord and Savoir and they can only get to Heaven thorough Him, or not?

is yes, then I take back everything I said and will admit I was wrong about the Mormons being Christians.

Wait.

Maybe I was confusing them with the group who is waiting for the spaceship. Jehova's Witnesses? You know, the ones who keep pushing the date of rapture back everytime they don't get beamed into the spaceship.

Are Jehova's Witnesses also considered Christians?

339 Adolfo:

No worries. I got pretty heated too; and I too apologize. We're on the same side, ultimately. Let's shake hands on it and stand together against our real enemies: lefties, liberals, jihadis, bad pizza makers. (I HATE bad pizza).

340

Monty didn't leave us with many details, Steve.

 

Adolfo, nobody is trying to convert anyone.

341

Let's shake hands on it and stand together against our real enemies: lefties, liberals, jihadis, bad pizza makers. (I HATE bad pizza).

And Canadians and the blind. Expecially blind Canadians.

342

I want answers!!!

 

Neville Chamberlains.

343 Also, I didn't intend for my comments about Mormonism to be rude, far less inflammatory. I hope that they weren't interpreted as such. I respect Mormons too, for the depth of their faith and their devotion to family, and all that. But, really, how can you have a vigorous debate about a topic without maybe being taken by your opponent as rude and even inflammatory? And I'm sure you're aware of all the nasty things that are said about Catholicism and the Catholic Church. Especially in the movies, the portrayals of the Catholic Church are often really down and dirty.

344 Expecially blind Canadians.

Especially blind French Canadians.

345

Bart,

I'll happily accept your apology if you honestly misunderstood.

I don't know very much about Mormonism OR jehovah's witnesses. But Jehova's witnesses are largely considered to be a non-christian cult.

But to answer your question, since I guess you lost track:

Do Mormons believe the basic tenet of Christianity: Jesus Christ is their Lord and Savoir and they can only get to Heaven thorough Him, or not?

Yes. According to bonhomme who is one.

I asked you what a Christian was in your own opinion, you told me. Then I asked bonhomme if he beleived that, and he says yes.

That's when I posted

Posted by: Entropy at June 06, 2007 10:04 PM (HgAV0)

So you can see why I got angry when you just went on to say they weren't anyway without even trying to explain it off. But I guessed you missed it and that's understandable.

346 I have no idea what Jehovah's Witnesses believe. I do know, however, that Michael Jackson was one. And that they always have book stores.

347

Adolfo, nobody is trying to convert anyone.

Posted by: Bart at June 06, 2007 11:41 PM (L1fQK)

I guess that's the point I was making.

It seems rude to insult a friend's wife or religion unless you have a pretty good reason (like you're trying to save them from a bad marriage or eternal damnation).

348 My wife just made me drink a can of Boost Plus and told me to come to bed. I wonder what ... HEY!

Gotta go!

349 Hey, I've got an idea. Let's have a debate about Global Warming and whether it is the result of evolution, or intelligent design.

350 The issue at hand is wether or not Mormons are a member or not, based on whether they disagree on the fundamentals or the periferal.

Which I pointed out, they do not agree on the fundamentals. Don't care for the discussion? Nobody's forcing you to read it any more than the other 100,000 different topics discussed here.

Do Mormons believe the basic tenet of Christianity: Jesus Christ is their Lord and Savior and they can only get to Heaven thorough Him, or not?

Not as such. They believe Jesus is a way that they can follow in order to earn salvation. However, they reject other basic tenets of Christianity: the Bible alone is the inspired word of God, that God is a trinity, and that Jesus Christ is the incarnate son of God, a member of that trinity.

351 Mormons don't believe in the triune God or that Christ is the incarnate son of God?

I didn't know that. Holy smokes, that's a significant difference.

352 And that's all I'm saying: a significant difference. Period. No rudeness or disrespect intended.

353 Geez, I hate to get in flame wars with fellow conservatives, especially here. Sorry to all.

354

Entropy, I apologize for the misunderstanding.

 

Okay then, so isn't Christianity Christ-centered? At least that's what I understand it to mean.

 

355

Steve, look up thread for what some of the Mormon posters say about their own religion. Not how Christopher Taylor interprets it.

We believe the Biblical account of the birth, death, and resurrection of Christ. We read about His life in the same Bible you do, assuming yours is a Christian Bible. He was born of Mary, lived a perfect life, atoned for the World's sins in the Garden of Gethsemane, was crucified at Golgotha, was resurrected and appeared to Mary. Period. End. Of. Report.

You can continue your exclusionary tact but it shameful and dishonest and relies upon the words of anti-Mormons. Do you also get your news about conservatives from MoveOn.org and DU?

Oh...pray tell, to which evangelical denomination do you belong?
Posted by: jeremy at June 06, 2007 07:34 PM (4KV0k)

If he believes in the Biblical account of Jesus, would he not also believe that Jesus was the Son of God? In this case, I will take the Mormon's word over the non-Mormon.

356

 

Soooo what you're saying, adolfo velasquez, is that there is no spaceship?

 

 

 

That sucks.

357

Eh, since there are no Mormons left to speak for themselves, I guess I'll leave too.

I've got to go find a blog full of Dianic Wiccans so I can tell them that they're not real Wiccans.

358

They believe Jesus is a way that they can follow in order to earn salvation

So do, arguably Vatican II Catholics, and certainly a whole bunch of liberaly anglicans and episcopalians and whatnot.

Gonna call them not Christian?

Similarly on all the other stuff. Also - stop telling mormons what they believe.

359

They believe Jesus is a way that they can follow in order to earn salvation

Utterly false.  The LDS church teaches that humanity is lost without Christ and His atonement.  Jesus was the only one to ever live a sinless life, and because of this, everyone in the world needs him.  No other way.

Also, the LDS church does teach that Christ is the son of God, but not that the Father and the Son are the same individual.  The LDS church is not the only Christian church to teach this, although they are in the minority.  (Unitarians, for example, also do not believe that God the Father and Jesus Christ are the same being.)

Please stop making up random things and passing them off as fact, and don't believe everything you hear.

360

Curseman, you have brought a little light to the subject. It's funny but these are the openings for a member of a particular faith to do a little proseletising and yet the Mormon AOS commenters were run off eary instead of engaging in apologetics. Had they done so in depth , they might have convinced some of the skeptics of their Christian beliefs.

Mere assertion won't due , in part because of the suspision of the Book of Mormon on the part of other Christian denominations.

361

Do Mormons believe the basic tenet of Christianity: Jesus Christ is their Lord and Savior and they can only get to Heaven through Him?

Yes.  If you'd followed the links in this thread, this would already be obvious.

They believe Jesus is a way that they can follow in order to earn salvation. However, they reject other basic tenets of Christianity: the Bible alone is the inspired word of God, that God is a trinity, and that Jesus Christ is the incarnate son of God, a member of that trinity.

No, Mormons believe that Jesus Christ is THE way, motherf*cker.  Its in the Bible, maybe you've heard of it: <i>I am the way, the truth, and the life.  No man cometh unto the Father but by me.</i>  But since you apparently don't believe what Mormons tell you about believing the Bible, I'll quote the Book of Mormon to you:  <i>For no man can be saved, according to the words of Christ,save they shall have faith in his name</i>

We believe that the Father is God, that Christ is God, and that the Holy Ghost is God, and we refer to them collectively as God, but we don't believe that they are actually the same being and three beings at the same time.  So sue us.

362 How can one make the claim that Christ is optional in a church called "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?"

363

We believe that the Father is God, that Christ is God, and that the Holy Ghost is God, and we refer to them collectively as God, but we don't believe that they are actually the same being and three beings at the same time.  So sue us.

I know I'm treading on thin ice since this already became contentious but I believe that we should at least be able to ask each other honest questions.

Doesn't believing in God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit but not in the Trinity mean polytheism?

I do not ask to offend but to understand. I've heard many things about Mormon beliefs and would like to know what is true and what is not.

 

364 Doesn't believing in God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit but not in the Trinity mean polytheism?

Yes.

Also, Mormon theology says that the god of this world is one of many and that he was once a mortal man.

365 升降机升降台 升降平台 登车桥 货架超市货架 北京货架 南京货架 货架公司 货架厂广州货架 北京货架公司 北京货架厂 仓储货架 塑料托盘托盘 苏州货架 木托盘 塑木托盘 纸托盘钢托盘 登高车 手推车 静音手推车 超市手推车置物架 仓库货架 角钢货架 轻型货架 中型货架重型货架 仓储设备 托盘 托盘 托盘托盘 托盘 托盘 托盘 塑料托盘塑料托盘 塑料托盘 塑料托盘 塑料托盘 塑料托盘塑料托盘 塑料托盘 仓储笼 仓储笼 仓储笼仓储笼 仓储笼 仓储笼 仓储笼 仓储笼仓储笼 仓储笼 仓储笼

366 dofus kamas 
www.dofus-kama.com
eve isk
www.isk-eve.com
shaiya gold
www.shaiya.ws
wow gold
www.nxbs.cn
seo
www.pigseo.com
yule
www.jijianlin.com

367 World of Warcraft power leveling wow power leveling,wow power levelingisan online role-playing experience set in the award-winninguniverse.wow gold,wow power leveling Players assume the roles of wow power leveling heroes as they explore, wow gold,wow gold,WoW Goldadventure,and quest across a vast world. is a "Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game" WoW Gold,wow gold,wow power leveling.wow power levelingwhich allows thousands of players to interact within the same world.World Of Warcraft Power Leveling Whether adventuring together or fighting against each other in epic battlesplayers will form friendships, wow power leveling,wow power leveling,wow power leveling,wow power levelingwow powerlevelingforge alliances,and compete with enemies for power leveling and glory.wow gold,wow gold,wow gold,wow gold,wow gold,wow gold,wow gold,buy wow gold As a wow power leveling online game, enables thousands ofworld of warcraft power leveling players to come together online and battle against theand each other. Cheap WoW Gold,Cheap WoW Gold,cheap wow gold,cheap wow gold,World Of Warcraft gold,Players from across the globe can leave the real world behind and undertake grand quests and heroic exploits in a land of fantastic adventure. world of warcraft gold,world of warcraft gold,world of warcraft gold,Unlike other cheap opponents. Below are some features found in wow powerleveling

368 专业从事组合式仓储货架、建材超市及仓储式超市货架设计、制造、安装、调试的企业，是国内最大的货架制造商之一。公司已承接近千座仓储货架工程的设计、制造和安装。 塑料托盘专业制造商—塑料托盘制造有限公司南京麦瑞欢迎您！南京麦瑞塑料托盘有限公司是国内最具影响的物流产品大型生产企业，主要生产的产品有塑料托盘，塑料卡板箱， ... 仓储笼采用优质钢材经冷扎硬化焊接而成，强度高、装载能力大，仓储笼可叠四层、实现仓储立体化，不同型号、不同规格的仓储笼承重为0.8t～2.0t。折叠式结构，装载、周转、存放 ... 南京麦瑞工业设备是专业工具柜制造商，我们精确的人机工程设计和高品质的要求保证了工具柜可以对用户的工具和物料安全合理的存储，包括SL系列工具柜、PL系列工具柜等， ... 户外钢制园林垃圾桶LDY系列, ◎室内钢制方形垃圾桶LDB系列. ◎户外钢制分类垃圾桶LDF系列, ◎室内钢制圆形垃圾桶LDA系列. ◎户外钢木垃圾桶LDG系列, ◎广告式垃圾桶 ... 根据不同的生产需求，工作台分为三大系列：钢制工作台、铝制工作台和非标工作台，钢制工作台主体框架采用钢制材料，铝制工作台主体框架采用标准铝制型材，非标工作台 ... 登车桥公司生产的登车桥、固定式登车桥、DCQY系列移动式登车桥每个部件都选自国内优秀企业。 升降平台公司可以根据您的需要定做各种不同尺寸的升降平台，不同吨位的单叉式或者多叉升降平台，DCQ系列液压升降平台等。 国内最大的升降机、升降台、液压升降机专业生产厂家之一，我公司生产的升降机、升降台、升降平台、液压升降机每个部件都选自国内优秀企业；还可根据客户要求采用进口 ...

369 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Posted by: 角钢货架 at May 19, 2008 10:36 PM (j9bBT)

Posted by: ²È½Ð¾¯½÷ at January 30, 2009 06:37 AM (hXNNS)

Posted by: fjdk at February 27, 2009 12:44 AM (eqMrT)

Posted by: dfsasfsaf at October 18, 2009 10:37 AM (GQ3Y4)

Posted by: hair straighteners at October 24, 2009 09:26 PM (MtGwJ)

Posted by: airforceoneshop at November 01, 2009 08:03 PM (wMYD4)

Posted by: asd at November 08, 2009 04:22 AM (ZGh8a)

Posted by: airforceoneshop at November 09, 2009 05:42 AM (pEyMs)

Posted by: links of london at November 12, 2009 02:52 AM (amVaT)

Posted by: ugg boots at November 14, 2009 09:22 AM (s7MB5)

Posted by: replica watches at November 17, 2009 04:03 AM (xpuiO)

Posted by: replica watches at November 17, 2009 10:34 AM (xpuiO)

Posted by: replica watches at November 17, 2009 09:45 PM (xpuiO)

Posted by: replica watches at November 18, 2009 05:52 AM (C/zDM)

Posted by: mbtshoesbuy at November 25, 2009 05:57 AM (fd1jz)

Posted by: replica watches at December 04, 2009 09:20 AM (bsW/x)

Posted by: makol UGG at December 05, 2009 12:50 PM (cmMdO)

Posted by: wholesale jewelry at December 28, 2009 08:49 AM (1dySH)

Posted by: nike air max at January 20, 2010 06:48 PM (CZv6h)

Posted by: replica watches at February 06, 2010 11:25 AM (TUJDt)

Posted by: wow gold at February 09, 2010 12:50 PM (UTLu5)

Name: *

Email: *

URL:

Comments:

Processing 0.25, elapsed 0.2484 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0232 seconds, 398 records returned.
Page size 417 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.