Newt Vs. Romney

[John Lockecaptain of 1,000]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... 12265.html

that article talks about a newt vs romney 1v1 debate I know all you all are mostly Ron Paul supporters and are gonna vote for him come hell or high water, but my question is would you have any interest in this type of debate?

Personally I would love to see this. No need to get on your high horses and talk about Ron Paul and how he is o so great we all know about your man crush's on him just give me your opinion on this type of debate.

[Shimdidlycaptain of 100]

Two puppets arguing over the best way to ruin this country... Hmmmm... Might be interesting.

[Original_Intentcaptain of 1,000]

More 1 v 1 debates among the candidates are needed. I heard Newt has scheduled a 1 v 1 with Huntsman - that should be worth watching and I bet Huntsman knocks Newt down a few pegs.

[Glenncaptain of 100]

More 1 v 1 debates among the candidates are needed. I heard Newt has scheduled a 1 v 1 with Huntsman - that should be worth watching and I bet Huntsman knocks Newt down a few pegs.

1 vs 1 debates between two candidates who will not address many of the most crucial issues facing us would be infuriating. At least with multiple candidates things can get shaken and stirred occasionally.

This smells like a typical Newt move to market himself with media backing...Create a hub and spoke arrangement where the Newt is the center of a string of 1 vs 1 debates (he will have several times more combined debate coverage than everyone else)...I have a feeling Ron Paul will not have his own personal appointment with Newt and his media bandwagon.

Let face it, the Newt is the new McCain, but likely even worse.

[PunaGabecaptain of 100]

I believe Newt is pure evil and is up towards the top of the new world order. He will probably be the next president that will put the nail in the coffin of the USA. I also believe Mitt is a good guy just super naive and maybe he doesnt realize he is surrounded by gadianton robbers. Newt would probably win the debate.

[pjbrowniecaptain of 1,000]

If I have to make a choice between two neo-cons, I would have to go with the ignorant misguided one who at least holds the Priesthood and who has proven his leadership mettle versus the complicit deliberate globalist who reminds me of a shorter, smarter, more conniving version of Kissenger. Sure Newt will fire Bernanke to get the Tea Party vote and then do nothing about the Fed, promise an audit, then back off once elected. Romney in the meantime will just decision tree any Federal Reserve policy to death.

[lundbaekcaptain of 1,000]

Locke, your use of the expression " your man crush's on him" (Ron Paul) reveals you as typical of the many Mormon rectums cheerleading for a candidate whom more politically astute Mormons consider a disgrace to the Mormon Church.

[uglypitbullcaptain of 1,000]

Newt vs Romney would be a boring squabble between two peacocks fanning their tail feathers. These so called "debates" are a joke to begin with. There is no debating to begin with for starters, these folks are just answering questions that have been designed to elicit certain responses that most of the candidates already have prepared to deliver. A true debate would be letting the candidates go toe to toe with each other on topics that have relevancy based on issues that are affecting this country. If this was allowed, there would only be one candidate standing in the end and I think we all know who that is.

I too agree with lundbaek.....the "man crush" comment was typical of an elementary school child who just farted in front of his friends for the first time. Its not the man that induces the crush...its his message. Big difference.

[tmaccaptain of 1,000]

Although, given current choices, I too am a Ron Paul fan, Instead of taking a bunch of offense about the RP comments (remember the old saying, "he who takes offense when none is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when it is intended is an even bigger fool"), I'm just going to try to address the question of a 1v1 debate, Newt vs. Romney. I think that implies that there would be no moderator asking questions, and that they would be going basically nose to nose, with their own questions. Personally, like OI, I think it would be interesting. I would love to see it. Not that I think it would change the world or anything, but I think it would be fun to watch. I am not a fan of Gingrich or Romney, but it bugs me that Mitt won't strap on a pair and do it. Since he's in a position that doesn't require him to take much risk, he's just trying to play it safe, and trying to avoid doing anything that might cause him to make any kind of mistake. And I think that's about the kind of president he would be -- very calculated, very dedicated to saving face, and looking good, whether that is what the situation called for or not, but I'm not sure just how much backbone he's got when that is required (actually I am pretty sure how much backbone he's got -- not much). I think Romney's view is that he has nothing to gain and everything to lose, while Newt obviously thinks he's got something to gain. I would love to see them debate 1 on 1, and then each of them debate Ron Paul. But to me it looks like that's something they will all do their best to avoid.

[uglypitbullcaptain of 1,000]

No offense was taken....just a simple suggestion of how unnecessary it was and how it subtracted from the legitimacy of the question. Most Ron Paul supporters are used to this kind of stuff anyway....it doesn't deter from our conviction.

[Fairmindedcaptain of 1,000]

No offense was taken....just a simple suggestion of how unnecessary it was and how it subtracted from the legitimacy of the question. Most Ron Paul supporters are used to this kind of stuff anyway....it doesn't deter from our conviction.

That's the main reason I didn't respond to his post. It's never a good idea to start a discussion by insulting the people you want to talk to.

[davedancaptain of 1,000]

The only thing the globalist would love better than to collapse this country under a black president is to collapse it under a Mormon president.

That said. Mitt Romney has the potential to pocess the spirit of prophecy. I was impressed by some comments Romney made 4 years ago when it came to right to life laws. He said when bills came to his desk for signature, he followed his conscience in defending life.

That is what the globalists are most afraid of. They can't allow anyone to make a decision based on the dictates of their conscience. This is what the "Cremation of Care" ceremony at the Bohemian Grove is all about. That ceremony is about casting out the Holy Spirit and conscience. What Christians need to do is cast out Satan.

It may be that if it Mitt Romney won the presidential election, the globalists would be so fearful of Romney undoing everthing, they would choose to get China and Russia to strike the US before he officially took office.

[jonholb55captain of 100]

I would believe that a debate Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich would be most interesting to watch. However. both of these gentlemen are "establishment" candidates. Conservatives in the United States would not have a clear definite choice between the Republican and Democrat choices for President if either Mitt or Newt were to become the Republican nominee for President in 2012. I believe that Congressman Ron Paul is the only choice for the Republican Party if you are a conservative in the modern political parlance. Ron Paul understands the Constitution per the original intent and will attempt to live by it. The other candidates in the Republican Party will give only lip service to the Constitution.

[jeanpierrecaptain of 100]

It sounds nice that Mitt said that he followed his conscience in defending life, yet during his run for Governor of Masachusetts, speakiing of abortion, he stated "Let me make this very clear: I will preserve and protect a woman's rigfht to choose." Where was his conscience when he told that Moses at the bush story? Where was his conscience when he supported the unconstitutional TARP bank bailout? Where was his conscience when he tried to fool Massachusetts voters by claiming he would not impliment tax increases and then substituted some $260 million in additional (over 30) fees and increases of existing fees?

[Fairmindedcaptain of 1,000]

Romney does what all politicians do, republican and democrat alike. They pay lip service to the constituents who support their party without ever actually working to the benefit of those constituents. With democrats its most often seen with how they treat minority groups. As soon as the democratic party got the minority votes they found they no longer needed to actually do anything to benefit minorities, as long as they maintained the image of doing so. Republicans are the same way with abortion . . . they can get the Utah and Bible Belt votes just by saying they oppose it, but you notice they never actually do anything about it, and even act counter to their claims.

[John Lockecaptain of 1,000]

Locke, your use of the expression " your man crush's on him" (Ron Paul) reveals you as typical of the many Mormon rectums cheerleading for a candidate whom more politically astute Mormons consider a disgrace to the Mormon Church.

LOL get over yourself you have no idea who I do and do not support.

[John Lockecaptain of 1,000]

No offense was taken....just a simple suggestion of how unnecessary it was and how it subtracted from the legitimacy of the question. Most Ron Paul supporters are used to this kind of stuff anyway....it doesn't deter from our conviction.

That's the main reason I didn't respond to his post. It's never a good idea to start a discussion by insulting the people you want to talk to.

and yet here you are responding...and a few posts later responding even more...

I'm sorry if me telling the truth insulted you. I was after all using it in a jestful manner but I suppose its easier to play the victim eh?

[John Lockecaptain of 1,000]

The only thing the globalist would love better than to collapse this country under a black president is to collapse it under a Mormon president.

That said. Mitt Romney has the potential to pocess the spirit of prophecy. I was impressed by some comments Romney made 4 years ago when it came to right to life laws. He said when bills came to his desk for signature, he followed his conscience in defending life.

That is what the globalists are most afraid of. They can't allow anyone to make a decision based on the dictates of their conscience. This is what the "Cremation of Care" ceremony at the Bohemian Grove is all about. That ceremony is about casting out the Holy Spirit and conscience. What Christians need to do is cast out Satan.

It may be that if it Mitt Romney won the presidential election, the globalists would be so fearful of Romney undoing everthing, they would choose to get China and Russia to strike the US before he officially took office.

That is a startling line of reasoning there good sir. Down right spooky.

[John Lockecaptain of 1,000]

More 1 v 1 debates among the candidates are needed. I heard Newt has scheduled a 1 v 1 with Huntsman - that should be worth watching and I bet Huntsman knocks Newt down a few pegs.

Do you really prefer Huntsman to Newt? Or do you think Huntsman knows his stuff better than Newt? I have never been impressed with Huntsman..but that probably comes from having far too much personal contact with him..just really don't like him at all.

[bobhenstracaptain of 1,000]

I only have "one" vote, and that vote is going to Mitt because he holds the Priesthood. The globalist, nor the potted plants, in "my opinion, are eligible!

Bob

[familymancaptain of 10]

Isn't Mitt a globalist?

[tmaccaptain of 1,000]

I only have "one" vote, and that vote is going to Mitt because he holds the Priesthood.

Bob, I admire you so much, and respect all of your opinions (and agree with most of them), but I really have a hard time swallowing that a guy who appears to me to be a luke warm priesthood holder at best (the same could probably be said of both the "Mormon" candidates -- Romney & Huntsman) is the best choice we've got at such a crucial time in this country. To he whom much is given, much is expected. Both Romney and Huntsman have been given so much both in terms of having the blessings of the restored gospel and the priesthood in their lives, as well as vast financial resources, experience, etc., and yet where have all those blessings led them in terms of solid political policy? How in tune are they really with the Laws of Nature and Nature's God? Are they doing what they're doing because they are in a position to use the vast blessings they have been given to work closely with God to in turn bless this nation at a time when it really needs blessing, or are they mostly in it for themselves, and what they will gain personally from the experience, which really boils down to one word -- power.

Let us not forget these words: "It is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion." And even more importantly: "Because their 'hearts are set so much upon the vain things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men, that they do not learn this one lesson -- that the 'rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness. That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake . . . to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves, the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man."

Both Romney and Huntsman have had the priesthood conferred upon them, it is true . . . . but how do they fit the rest of the description? By their fruits yet shall know them. What are their fruits?

[tmaccaptain of 1,000]

Romney does what all politicians do, republican and democrat alike. They pay lip service to the constituents who support their party without ever actually working to the benefit of those constituents.

Fairminded, I agree 100% with your assessment -- as a general rule. I do think, however, that every once in a while we see someone who acts in a manner that is an exception to that rule, and I think there is one candidate in the Republican field whose track record shows that he can legitimately be considered to be an exception to that rule. . . . and unfortunately, he doesn't hold the priesthood -- yet.

[jeanpierrecaptain of 100]

I am finding more and more Mormons who believe that holding the Priesthood of God, having served as a bishop and stake president, and having had a successful career renders one automatically better qualified to serve in governmemnt. I think nearly all of the LDS congressmen and presidential candidates have demonstrated the error in that assumption. It seems that they, as well as nearly all LDS voters, take exceptions to the Lord's plan for government of this country. If all those priesthood holders could awake to our awful situation and to their responsibility to the U.S. Constitution....I'm not holding my breath.

[Fiannancaptain of 1,000]

Okay with Romney you get a semi-liberal who at least looks to the constitution as an ideal.

With Newt you get pure evil.

That's how I see it.

[jeanpierrecaptain of 100]

I have seen no evidence that Mitt Romney is guided by the Constitution. There is ample evidence that he does not understand the principles of the Constitution, he is unaware of his responsibility to uphold and abide by it, and/ or he lacks the integrity to be guided by it.

[tmaccaptain of 1,000]

The unfortunate reality is that having a solid grasp of fundamental Constitutional principles, let alone abiding by them, is not even on the radar screen for most "good" card-carrying (temple recommend holding) Church members, and just because they're politicians doesn't seem to cause most LDS politicians to deviate from that trend.

[bobhenstracaptain of 1,000]

Hey, I'm telling no one who to vote for! I said; "MY" options are to vote for the globalist, the potted plants, or Mitt! I chose Mitt, "Why?" because he holds the Priesthood. A former Stake President is hardly a luke warm holder of the Priesthood, and there's a very good chance Mitt will be like Hezekiah of old and confer with the Prophet, not much chance of any other present candidate accomplishing that! And why does he have to agree with everything we believe whatever our political persuasion? I'm a moderate conservative, but through the years I have had church leadership of every political persuasion including staunch liberals, all but a "few", and I include stanch conservatives among the "few," were outstanding leaders.

In General church leadership (General Authorities) we have had, and still have Republicans and Democrats leading us. It would seem the Lord doesn't care much about political persuasion! Is Mitt perfect? No, neither am I, but you guys will need to show me who's running who is!

Our people, our country will get the leadership it deserves! Hopefully enough repent and that process reverses itself. I'm going to give it every chance!

One Vote Bob

[Fiannancaptain of 1,000]

[uglypitbullcaptain of 1,000]

Will the REAL Mitt, please stand up.......which Mitt are you talking about?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... mr6bn3GDjc