Explain why I should throw away morals & vote for Romney

[lundbaekcaptain of 1,000]

If Mitt Romney has really gained more light and knowledge I would expect him to acknowledge his past errors and demonstrate knowledge of the constitutional and moral principles that he was disdainful of in past. Instead, he seems to be continuing to try to justify them. For example, Virgil Goode, the Constitution Party candidate for POTUS has acknowledged his past ignorance of and disdain for various constitutional principles, and is now promoting a platform that includes compliance with the Constitution. I would love for Mitt Romney to do the same.

[BlueMoon5captain of 1,000]

If Mitt Romney has really gained more light and knowledge I would expect him to acknowledge his past errors and demonstrate knowledge of the constitutional and moral principles that he was disdainful of in past. Instead, he seems to be continuing to try to justify them. For example, Virgil Goode, the Constitution Party candidate for POTUS has acknowledged his past ignorance of and disdain for various constitutional principles, and is now promoting a platform that includes compliance with the Constitution. I would love for Mitt Romney to do the same.

You assume that compliance with the Constitution mandates a chiseled-in-granite approach; it doesn't. Renowned constitutional scholars interpret articles of the Constitution in differing ways. Otherwise, the Supreme Court would issue only unanimous verdicts; they seldom do. At this writing, the Supreme Court is deliberating the constitutionality of ObamaCare. I'm certain their decision, due this month, will not be unanimous. Point: When you accuse Romney of ignorance re. "constitutional and moral principles" you paint him with a very broad brush--so broad, in fact, as to be meaningless. What, specifically, do you mean by "constitutional and moral principles"?

[lundbaekcaptain of 1,000]

What I mean by "constitutional principles" is as explained in Verses 4 thru 6 of Section 98, even though they do not refer to the Constitution itself. They do obligate Church members to support law that not only meets the constitutional standard but also supports the principles of fundamental rights of all people - an important caveat against accepting interpretations allowing for violations of fundamental rights of others; a fundamental right being a God-given right that everyone can claim simultaneously without forcing others to serve their needs.

What I mean by moral principles are those that comply with what we regard as gospel principles, including truth as opposed to deception, which I cite because of Romney's attempt to clain that he did not raise taxes in Masachusetts when he raised some $500 million by adding and increasing fees. I take an attempted deception like that as a lie.

[lundbaekcaptain of 1,000]

My understanding of compliance with the Contitution means we must learn and abide by the principles of the Constitution in the tradition of the Founding Fathers, or in my words, as the Lord and the Framers of the Constitution meant it to be understood.

My list of top constitutional scholars would include J. Reuben Clark, W. Cleon Skousen, Jerome Horowitz, H. Verlan Andersen, Ezra Taft Benson, Robert Welch, Christopher S. Bentley (a member of this forum), and a few others I wouldn't expect to be known here and may not know of myself. It would not include lawyers and judges who have deliberately distorted or permitted distortions of the Constitution to suit their own agenda, of which there are plenty.

[BlueMoon5captain of 1,000]

What I mean by "constitutional principles" is as explained in Verses 4 thru 6 of Section 98, even though they do not refer to the Constitution itself.

Does anyone besides you regard thoses verses as "constitutional principles"? Possibly so, but they certainly are not commonly recognized (or referred to) as such by members of the Church. That characterization is of your manufacture. Hence, you accuse Gov. Romney of violating your reading of something you call "constitutional principles." How could he possibly serve as governor of the Bay State and not befriend "the constitutional law of the land"?

: They do obligate Church members to support law that not only meets the constitutional standard. . .

There is no reference in said verses to meeting a "constitutional standard'; in fact, the wording suggests the Bill of Rights rather than the Constitution proper.

: but also supports the principles of fundamental rights of all people - an important caveat against accepting interpretations allowing for violations of fundamental rights of others; a fundamental right being a God-given right that everyone can claim simultaneously without forcing others to serve their needs.

You overreach here. Does an unborn but viable fetus have a "fundamental right" granted by God? How, then, do you feel about Roe v. Wade?

: What I mean by moral principles are those that comply with what we regard as gospel principles, including truth as opposed to deception. . . .

Gospel/moral principles, unfortunately, sometimes collide with what you call "constitutional principles"; hence, please refer to Amendment 1.

[Out of time. I'll respond to your tax issue tomorrow.]

[louganzoHi, I'm new.]

You people who attack Romneycare are attacking it in a mythical, constitutional vacuum. When Romneycare was passed it was with the reality of Medicaid already being in place - a Medicaid system that was bankrupting Massachusetts. Romney had to live with that reality and find a solution that the Feds would accept. To write from Utah and complain about the imposition of Romneycare on Constitutional rights and not address Medicaid's impact on Constitutional rights is both silly and/or devious or just uninformed and unintellectual at best. Citizens - or non-citizens - who were abusing the Medicaid system instead of getting their own coverage were taking the freedoms of their fellow citizens far more than Romneycare did. That was the original evil. Romneycare had more of a net effect of forcing everyone to be SELF-RELIANT than it did of taking away peoples' rights.

I can't stress how ridiculous an argment it is for someone in Utah to complain about the rights of extremely Socialist-leaning Massachusetts citizens being violated, when it is they who have voted for socialist policies for decades. It's silly to claim they are now victims of Mitt Romney. Don't you people hear yourselves and your complete and utter nonsense? It's Ron Paul fans who would impose their version of Constitutionality on citizens of another state, who don't seem to understand the Constitution. The people of Massachusetts OVERWHELMINGLY support Romneycare which their legislature passed - not Romeny - and Mitt Romney signed (please at least get the political process correct in your comments) and now you want to claim that our rights on the other side of the country were violated because Bostonians want a more socialist healthcare system. And yes, I do belive under the circumstances Romney was faced with, Romneycare was a reasonable option to force people to take responsibility for their healthcare instead of living off the state or their fellow citizens. Show me a poll that says the people of the Commonwealth want out of Romneycare and I'll start listening to your arguments about how their rights are being violated.

[louganzoHi, I'm new.]

You people who attack Romneycare are attacking it in a mythical, constitutional vacuum. When Romneycare was passed it was with the reality of Medicaid already being in place - a Medicaid system that was bankrupting Massachusetts. Romney had to live with that reality and find a solution that the Feds would accept. To write from Utah and complain about the imposition of Romneycare on Constitutional rights and not address Medicaid's impact on Constitutional rights is both silly and/or devious or just uninformed and unintellectual at best. Citizens - or non-citizens - who were abusing the Medicaid system instead of getting their own coverage were taking the freedoms of their fellow citizens far more than Romneycare did. That was the original evil. Romneycare had more of a net effect of forcing everyone to be SELF-RELIANT than it did of taking away peoples' rights.

I can't stress how ridiculous an argment it is for someone in Utah to complain about the rights of extremely Socialist-leaning Massachusetts citizens being violated, when it is they who have voted for socialist policies for decades. It's silly to claim they are now victims of Mitt Romney. Don't you people hear yourselves and your complete and utter nonsense? It's Ron Paul fans who would impose their version of Constitutionality on citizens of another state, who don't seem to understand the Constitution. The people of Massachusetts OVERWHELMINGLY support Romneycare which their legislature passed - not Romeny - and Mitt Romney signed (please at least get the political process correct in your comments) and now you want to claim that our rights on the other side of the country were violated because Bostonians want a more socialist healthcare system. And yes, I do belive under the circumstances Romney was faced with, Romneycare was a reasonable option to force people to take responsibility for their healthcare instead of living off the state or their fellow citizens. Show me a poll that says the people of the Commonwealth want out of Romneycare and I'll start listening to your arguments about how their rights are being violated.

[Teancumcaptain of 100]

I can't stress how ridiculous an argment it is for someone in Utah to complain about the rights of extremely Socialist-leaning Massachusetts citizens being violated, when it is they who have voted for socialist policies for decades.

Democracy is mobacracy. Founders stated so themselves. Voting for socialism doesn't make it right. We have been to stand against the majority in cases where mobacracy (i.e.,m democracy) is used to rob us of our agency or liberty. Our States are to be Republican form of governments, not socialist ones.

[Legioncaptain of 1,000]

I can't stress how ridiculous an argment it is for someone in Utah to complain about the rights of extremely Socialist-leaning Massachusetts citizens being violated, when it is they who have voted for socialist policies for decades.

Democracy is mobacracy. Founders stated so themselves. Voting for socialism doesn't make it right. We have been to stand against the majority in cases where mobacracy (i.e.,m democracy) is used to rob us of our agency or liberty. Our States are to be Republican form of governments, not socialist ones.

How do you stand against the majority when as King Mosiah stated....things are done by the voice of the people?

[Teancumcaptain of 100]

I find it interesting that some apparently devout LDS who criticize Romney seem to reject the doctrine of eternal progression. As a life-long LDS, I have been taught that we are here to learn and to work toward perfection. Part of learning is to have the integrity and maturity to change our views about difficult issues. Why, then, I'm constrained to ask, is it seemingly unforgivable for Romney to reverse/alter course as he gains more light and knowledge? The world isn't static; as mortals living in the world, are we supposed to be mentally/spiritually static?

I have never said anything about Romney's belief in eternal progression. But since you bring it up, are we not called to judge a person by their fruits? If Romney fruits in the political arean are all rotten up to about 2007, are we to be so naive as to believe that a 60 yr old religious man can is simply trying to "reverse/alter course as he gains more light and knowledge" on issues such as homosexuality and abortion? My kids know the difference between what is right and wrong on these issues already so it is impossible for me to imagine Mitt Romney couldn't figure these out until the last few years:

1. Homosexuality is wrong as it undermines our Father's Plan of Salvation which is centered on families; yet Romney used Gay PRIDE flyers to promote his gubernatorial campaign when he was over 50 yrs old! You mean to tell me that he was still in need of "more light and knowledge" on this issue?

2. Murdering a human baby in the womb (abortion) is clearly against the 10 commandments and the Plan of Salvation. Yet when Romney ran against Ted Kennedy in Massachusetts he was supportive of a woman's right to choose and therefore allowing woman the choice of what to do with the spirit sent from heaven above whom our Father placed in a new mortal tabernacle. Romney did this when he was in his 40's yet he was still in need of "more light and knowledge" on this issue too?

3. "Thou shall not steal" is also something Romney has been confused about by supporting Romneycare and bankster bailouts at the expense of millions of Americans. My kids understand that stealing is wrong. Yet I am to believe that Romney simply needs a little "more light and knowledge" on this issue too.

4. Putting someone in prison indefinitely without trial is something my kids clearly understand as well. To take someone's liberty without even having the opporutnity to defend themselves may have been something typical prior to the birth of America in 1776, but ever sine then, most Americans knew this was wrong. My kids know that if I don't hear them out prior to punishing them that this is very unfair. So to accuse people of being terrorists and slamming them in prison without any trial because they have too much food storage or too much ammo is clearly wrong. For Romney to do this and for folks to excuse him based on the idea that he's trying to "reverse/alter course as he gains more light and knowledge" is simply unreasonable. Also shows Romney has no respect for Habeus Corpus (which my kids cannot define, I admit).

The world isn't static; as mortals living in the world, are we supposed to be mentally/spiritually static?

Of course! And flip-floppers change their positions as often as most people change their underpants. So because people are always changing and flip-floppers change their views depending on the direction of the wind that day, does that mean we should just go with it? If so, when should we take a stand for truth? When will we stop listening to politicians speaking out of both sides of their mouths and judge them by their fruits? I have shown Romney fruits (historical facts) yet all I get back is nit-picking (complaints about details that change nothing about my overall claims) or attacks of Ron Paul (which I purposely left out of this thread to get some discussion soley on Mitt Romney history but some people simply refuse to separate the two).

Based on the points that I used to start this thread, no good justification has yet surfaced. Nothing has swayed me to vote for Romney. I feel I will stand for truth by supporting a Constitutional candidate even if he has no chance. And if that means Obama is elected to 4 more years, so be it. Republicans need to learn their lesson which they still cannot seem to understand: the Consitution is not some sort of floor mat. It is divine, as Pres. Benson stated. We are to fight to protect it. But Republicans seem to think that they can do this only when politically convenient. It is no different with Romney.

[Teancumcaptain of 100]

Citizens - or non-citizens - who were abusing the Medicaid system instead of getting their own coverage were taking the freedoms of their fellow citizens far more than Romneycare did. That was the original evil. Romneycare had more of a net effect of forcing everyone to be SELF-RELIANT than it did of taking away peoples' rights....
And yes, I do belive under the circumstances Romney was faced with, Romneycare was a reasonable option to force people to take responsibility for their healthcare instead of living off the state or their fellow citizens.

Sorry Lou. But it is impossible for me to believe that more government intervention in Massachussetts (or anywhere for that matter) would make people there more self reliant. Self reliance comes from within the individual, not from government.

Besides, I am from the great socialist state of California, probably just as socialistic as Massachussetts. I know that here, there are plenty of people I know on Medicaid. If universal healthcare were to be legalized here, those people on Medicaid would see no difference but a change in their healthcare provider's name perhaps. These people are getting free care now and will get it later. Some may be illegal but not all of them. Many will continue just as they do today with self-reliance being the last thing on their minds. But now, even more will be robbed. Those young people who choose not to have health insurance because they are completely healthy. Universal healthcare simply expands the pool of people who will be robbed. This is what Romney authorized (signed) in Massachussetts.

Your argument that universal healthcare actually makes people more self-reliant is laughable. Just as laughable as those economists who claim that we can eliminated are debt by increasing spending!

I live in California, so I guess you are saying that since 55% are the Mob here votes for Socialism and robs the other 45% of the fruit of their labor that this is Constitutional?? So where do you draw the line? How much can the majority ethically rob me and millions of others in my state for? When would you define this is "stealing?" When would you define this as slavery? For this is the reason that the Constitution requires Republic form of government in the States, not a Democracy: not Mobocracy (which is just another way of saying socialism).

[bobhenstracaptain of 1,000]

Ignoring, wasting or throwing away something as valuable as your God given right to vote is a sin!

Bob

[Original_Intentcaptain of 1,000]

Ignoring, wasting or throwing away something as valuable as your God given right to vote is a sin!

Bob

Would you have voted for Joseph Smith when he ran for President?

[bobhenstracaptain of 1,000]

Yeah, he was the priesthood holder!

[Legioncaptain of 1,000]

Yeah, he was the priesthood holder!

LOL.....sorry I probably shouldn't chime in but it was a good gut rolling chuckle (no offense OI...it was the perfect setup).

[Original_Intentcaptain of 1,000]

Actually, I expected the response.

So rather than saying throwing away your vote is a sin, Bob should have clarified that it is a sin unless you throw it away on a priesthood holder.

Out of one side of his mouth he says that Romney's past positions etc are trumped by TWO things - that he has the priesthood and that he has a chance to win.

But I just wanted to clarify that the chance to win argument is a principle that bob IS willing to waver on as long as he has the priesthood.

But wait! When asked if he would support Harry Reid the priesthood holder, bobby says NO! He's a democrat!

So we see bobby's final "principle" that he won;t waver on - loyalty to the PARTY. Well done komrade bobby! Party over principle! Not that I haven;t understood that about you for a long time, but it is nice to finally get the last piece of the puzzle.

[awakecaptain of 100]

Ignoring, wasting or throwing away something as valuable as your God given right to vote is a sin!

Bob

I myself have to go with Joseph Smith on this one, that 'throwing away our vote' in not a sin, but a very righteous thing, as long as we vote for a 'worthy' person. I don't believe for a minute Joseph or any other prophet ever taught that we should only vote for Priesthood holders.

The scriptures say we should vote for honest, wise & good men, it doesn't specify Priesthood holder, for even those might not be honest, wise or good.

“...we shall have the satisfaction of knowing that we have acted conscientiously, and have used our best judgment. And if we have to throw away our votes, we had better do so upon a worthy rather than an unworthy individual who might make use of the weapon we put in his hand to destroy us.” (Joseph Smith Jr., Times and Seasons, Nauvoo, IV, 441. Cited also in Roberts, Comprehensive History, II, 208-209.)

[BlueMoon5captain of 1,000]

I find it interesting that some apparently devout LDS who criticize Romney seem to reject the doctrine of eternal progression. As a life-long LDS, I have been taught that we are here to learn and to work toward perfection. Part of learning is to have the integrity and maturity to change our views about difficult issues. Why, then, I'm constrained to ask, is it seemingly unforgivable for Romney to reverse/alter course as he gains more light and knowledge? The world isn't static; as mortals living in the world, are we supposed to be mentally/spiritually static?

: I have never said anything about Romney's belief in eternal progression.

Of course you haven't. Why? Because to do so would negate your insistence that there's some prohibition against changing one's position on a given issue.

: But since you bring it up, are we not called to judge a person by their fruits? If Romney fruits in the political arean are all rotten up to about 2007, are we to be so naive as to believe that a 60 yr old religious man can is simply trying to "reverse/alter course as he gains more light and knowledge" on issues such as homosexuality and abortion?

What makes you think you are qualified--or entitled--to judge Mitt Romney on issues related to matters on which the Church has taken a position (homosexuality and abortion)? Are you his bishop? Have you conducted a temple recommend interview with him? Do you monitor his temple attendance?

: My kids know the difference between what is right and wrong on these issues already so it is impossible for me to imagine Mitt Romney couldn't figure these out until the last few years:

Do you really want to place a limit on the age at which a person can change his/her mind about a controversial issue, especially in the political/social arena and in this era in which technological knowledge triples every year? You do? Then perhaps you should consider the life history of Martin Harris, who, after years of alienation from the Church and excommunication (even though he funded the printing of the first Book of Mormon and was one of the three special witnesses) repented and was rebaptized in 1870 at the age of 87.

: 1. Homosexuality is wrong as it undermines our Father's Plan of Salvation which is centered on families; yet Romney used Gay PRIDE flyers to promote his gubernatorial campaign when he was over 50 yrs old! You mean to tell me that he was still in need of "more light and knowledge" on this issue?

Your statement is inappropriately harsh--and dated--and does not do justice to what the Church has said most recently about homosexuality, to wit:

SALT LAKE CITY -- At Tuesday night's Salt Lake City Council meeting, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued a statement showing its support of the city's proposed non-discrimination regulations.
The statement by the LDS Church reflects a position stated by the high-ranking church authorities more than a year ago. "We are not anti-gay [emphasis added], we are pro-marriage between a man and a woman. And there's a huge difference between those two points," Elder L. Whitney Clayton, of the Presidency of the Quorum of the Seventy told KSL News. . . . Following the Church's statement, the gay-rights group Affirmation issued a response, applauding the Church's action. (Nov. 10, 2009)

: 2. Murdering a human baby in the womb (abortion) is clearly against the 10 commandments and the Plan of Salvation. Yet when Romney ran against Ted Kennedy in Massachusetts he was supportive of a woman's right to choose and therefore allowing woman the choice of what to do with the spirit sent from heaven above whom our Father placed in a new mortal tabernacle. Romney did this when he was in his 40's yet he was still in need of "more light and knowledge" on this issue too?

How old was Saul (later Paul) who persecuted the Church and rejoiced in the stoning of Stephen when he subsequently received "light and knowledge" on the road to Damascus? By your lights, whatever his age, he should have known that stoning Stephen to death was wrong.

: 3. "Thou shall not steal" is also something Romney has been confused about by supporting Romneycare and bankster bailouts at the expense of millions of Americans. My kids understand that stealing is wrong. Yet I am to believe that Romney simply needs a little "more light and knowledge" on this issue too.

You go off the deep end here. Do you know that Romney personally enriched himself via "bankster bailouts"? Actually, you don't. Are you aware that Romney has contributed tens of millions to the Church?

: 4. Putting someone in prison indefinitely without trial is something my kids clearly understand as well. To take someone's liberty without even having the opporutnity to defend themselves may have been something typical prior to the birth of America in 1776, but ever sine then, most Americans knew this was wrong. My kids know that if I don't hear them out prior to punishing them that this is very unfair. So to accuse people of being terrorists and slamming them in prison without any trial because they have too much food storage or too much ammo is clearly wrong. For Romney to do this. . . .

The portion I have underlined is an egregious, blatant falsehood. Romney has done no such thing. Have you taught your kids the difference between telling a lie and telling the truth? Perhaps it's time you did.

The world isn't static; as mortals living in the world, are we supposed to be mentally/spiritually static?

: Of course!

Really? So, for starters, women shouldn't have the right to vote, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 should be repealed. Are those among your "enlightened" positions?

[The balance of your post doesn't merit a response. . .not worth my time to deal with drivel.]

[bobhenstracaptain of 1,000]

Actually, I expected the response.

So rather than saying throwing away your vote is a sin, Bob should have clarified that it is a sin unless you throw it away on a priesthood holder.

Out of one side of his mouth he says that Romney's past positions etc are trumped by TWO things - that he has the priesthood and that he has a chance to win.

But I just wanted to clarify that the chance to win argument is a principle that bob IS willing to waver on as long as he has the priesthood.

But wait! When asked if he would support Harry Reid the priesthood holder, bobby says NO! He's a democrat!

So we see bobby's final "principle" that he won;t waver on - loyalty to the PARTY. Well done komrade bobby! Party over principle! Not that I haven;t understood that about you for a long time, but it is nice to finally get the last piece of the puzzle.

No OI, it's a sin to throw away your vote on some guy who doesn't hold the Priesthood when a priesthood holder "is" available. Harry wasn't running for president, he was "not" available, perhaps you were not aware of that fact? I was OI! Had I the choice between Mitt or Harry, I still would have picked Mitt! But Harry was smart enough to know he couldn't whip Mitt, unlike Ron Paul, who just knew he could whip Mitt----if only----?

I don't vote for dumbocrats, nor libertarians OI, please get that straight! I vote for Republicans, which is short for Republic----

Bob

[Teancumcaptain of 100]

Great way to show you are above the fray BlueMoon:

[The balance of your post doesn't merit a response. . .not worth my time to deal with drivel.]

I don't believe my post is drivel, but this most definitely is:

Your statement is inappropriately harsh--and dated--and does not do justice to what the Church has said most recently about homosexuality, to wit:

SALT LAKE CITY -- At Tuesday night's Salt Lake City Council meeting, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued a statement showing its support of the city's proposed non-discrimination regulations.
The statement by the LDS Church reflects a position stated by the high-ranking church authorities more than a year ago. "We are not anti-gay [emphasis added], we are pro-marriage between a man and a woman. And there's a huge difference between those two points," Elder L. Whitney Clayton, of the Presidency of the Quorum of the Seventy told KSL News. . . . Following the Church's statement, the gay-rights group Affirmation issued a response, applauding the Church's action. (Nov. 10, 2009)

The Church is definitely not anti-gay, I agree, but it also also made clear that living such a lifestyle is not in accordance with our Heavenly Father's Plan of Salvation. We (nor I) do not hate gays (i.e. ant-gay) but we do not condone the practice. Romney did and he used a Gay Pride event (let me remind you that these events are extremely immoral, filled with half naked people performing lewd acts in public) for political gain. None of this is at all endorsed by the Church in saying that they are anti-gay. Yet Romney, about 10 years ago, did endorse such filth.

Really? So, for starters, women shouldn't have the right to vote, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 should be repealed. Are those among your "enlightened" positions?

Great. So now I am a knuckle-dragging neanderthal that fights for woman to be second class citizens and blacks to be segregated. Thanks BlueMoon, you really have a way of elevating the Forum. That kind of talk will bring us right back to the Republicrat vs Democan game since that is a type of line one side typically uses against the other.

[The balance of your post doesn't merit a response. . .not worth my time to deal with drivel.]

Since you have ended the discussion, why should I bother?

I will simply say that no one can erase Romney's past. If you have faith in Romney, then vote for him. I do not have faith in the man. I only wish Romney supporters would admit that to vote for Romney is showing your faith in him, not the Church and that they should quit disparaging those who disagree as if they are anti-Mormon for showing how Mitt Romney is seriously flawed.

[Teancumcaptain of 100]

Actually, I expected the response.

So rather than saying throwing away your vote is a sin, Bob should have clarified that it is a sin unless you throw it away on a priesthood holder.

Out of one side of his mouth he says that Romney's past positions etc are trumped by TWO things - that he has the priesthood and that he has a chance to win.

But I just wanted to clarify that the chance to win argument is a principle that bob IS willing to waver on as long as he has the priesthood.

But wait! When asked if he would support Harry Reid the priesthood holder, bobby says NO! He's a democrat!

So we see bobby's final "principle" that he won;t waver on - loyalty to the PARTY. Well done komrade bobby! Party over principle! Not that I haven;t understood that about you for a long time, but it is nice to finally get the last piece of the puzzle.

[Teancumcaptain of 100]

I don't vote for dumbocrats, nor libertarians OI, please get that straight! I vote for Republicans, which is short for Republic----

Bob

Exactly Bob. Party above principle. We understand. You are not about the Priesthood or princple; its about the party for you.

Republicans can do no wrong. George W. was great.

[BlueMoon5captain of 1,000]

Great way to show you are above the fray BlueMoon:

[The balance of your post doesn't merit a response. . .not worth my time to deal with drivel.]

I don't believe my post is drivel, but this most definitely is:

Your statement is inappropriately harsh--and dated--and does not do justice to what the Church has said most recently about homosexuality, to wit:

SALT LAKE CITY -- At Tuesday night's Salt Lake City Council meeting, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued a statement showing its support of the city's proposed non-discrimination regulations.
The statement by the LDS Church reflects a position stated by the high-ranking church authorities more than a year ago. "We are not anti-gay [emphasis added], we are pro-marriage between a man and a woman. And there's a huge difference between those two points," Elder L. Whitney Clayton, of the Presidency of the Quorum of the Seventy told KSL News. . . . Following the Church's statement, the gay-rights group Affirmation issued a response, applauding the Church's action. (Nov. 10, 2009)

: The Church is definitely not anti-gay, I agree, but it also also made clear that living such a lifestyle is not in accordance with our Heavenly Father's Plan of Salvation.

What is printed at the bottom of the poster? Doesn't it say "All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of their sexual preference"? Do you suppose that's what Mitt Romney was endorsing? And isn't that what the Church says in the statement I quoted above?

: We (nor I) do not hate gays (i.e. ant-gay) but we do not condone the practice. Romney did. . . .

You don't know that Romney condoned "the practice." Are you unaware that there are gay individuals and gay couples who do not participate in sex?

: and he used a Gay Pride event (let me remind you that these events are extremely immoral, filled with half naked people performing lewd acts in public) for political gain.

That is probably true, but it does not mean that he approved of the stereotypical gay lifestyle. Indeed, many gays are embarrassed by the disgusting antics of militant homosexuals. Remember, the poster reads "All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of their sexual preference." The Church agrees.

: None of this is at all endorsed by the Church in saying that they are [not?]anti-gay. Yet Romney, about 10 years ago, did endorse such filth.

Really? So, for starters, women shouldn't have the right to vote, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 should be repealed. Are those among your "enlightened" positions?

: Great. So now I am a knuckle-dragging neanderthal that fights for woman to be second class citizens and blacks to be segregated. Thanks BlueMoon, you really have a way of elevating the Forum.

What did you mean then when you answered "Of course," when I asked if people are supposed be mentally/morally static?

[The balance of your post doesn't merit a response. . .not worth my time to deal with drivel.]

: Since you have ended the discussion, why should I bother? I will simply say that no one can erase Romney's past.

No one can erase anyone's past; you state a revelation of the obvious. Romney, however, has nothing to be ashamed of in his past; indeed, he has much to be proud of--a superb bishop, a model stake president, a home teacher without peer, and a husband and father of surpassing excellence.

: If you have faith in Romney, then vote for him. I do not have faith in the man. I only wish Romney supporters would admit that to vote for Romney is showing your faith in him. . .

You got that right.

not the Church . . .

You got that wrong.

: and that they should quit disparaging those who disagree as if they are anti-Mormon for showing how Mitt Romney is seriously flawed.

Your obsession with Ron Paul tends to cloud your judgment.

[InfoWarrior82captain of 1,000]

Actually, I expected the response.

So rather than saying throwing away your vote is a sin, Bob should have clarified that it is a sin unless you throw it away on a priesthood holder.

Out of one side of his mouth he says that Romney's past positions etc are trumped by TWO things - that he has the priesthood and that he has a chance to win.

But I just wanted to clarify that the chance to win argument is a principle that bob IS willing to waver on as long as he has the priesthood.

But wait! When asked if he would support Harry Reid the priesthood holder, bobby says NO! He's a democrat!

So we see bobby's final "principle" that he won;t waver on - loyalty to the PARTY. Well done komrade bobby! Party over principle! Not that I haven;t understood that about you for a long time, but it is nice to finally get the last piece of the puzzle.

Well there it is. Party over principle, Bob. I'm glad my grandpa instilled principle over party in his son and his son in me. It's not too late for you.

[minganocaptain of 1,000]

Romney's campaign bus was just circling an Obama speech site, honking the horn repeatedly.

Low class. Romney should be ashamed and apologize immediately. That is definitely not a Christ-like thing to do.

[InfoWarrior82captain of 1,000]

I can't stress how ridiculous an argment it is for someone in Utah to complain about the rights of extremely Socialist-leaning Massachusetts citizens being violated, when it is they who have voted for socialist policies for decades.

Democracy is mobacracy. Founders stated so themselves. Voting for socialism doesn't make it right. We have been to stand against the majority in cases where mobacracy (i.e.,m democracy) is used to rob us of our agency or liberty. Our States are to be Republican form of governments, not socialist ones.

How do you stand against the majority when as King Mosiah stated....things are done by the voice of the people?

Have you ever thought about putting forth effort to pass a constitutional amendment to transform our republic into a direct democracy? You would probably get more support than you would expect.

[Fiannancaptain of 1,000]

Okay, with Obama you KNOW what kinds of evil stuff in in the works but with Romney there is a very good chance he will TRY to do the right thing.

[bobhenstracaptain of 1,000]

Actually, I expected the response.

So rather than saying throwing away your vote is a sin, Bob should have clarified that it is a sin unless you throw it away on a priesthood holder.

Out of one side of his mouth he says that Romney's past positions etc are trumped by TWO things - that he has the priesthood and that he has a chance to win.

But I just wanted to clarify that the chance to win argument is a principle that bob IS willing to waver on as long as he has the priesthood.

But wait! When asked if he would support Harry Reid the priesthood holder, bobby says NO! He's a democrat!

So we see bobby's final "principle" that he won;t waver on - loyalty to the PARTY. Well done komrade bobby! Party over principle! Not that I haven;t understood that about you for a long time, but it is nice to finally get the last piece of the puzzle.

Well there it is. Party over principle, Bob. I'm glad my grandpa instilled principle over party in his son and his son in me. It's not too late for you.

You and your guys declaring party over principal is laughable! I see your so called principled people at the state party conventions, you people certainly have your moments, booing, yelling, screaming when things don't go your way, attempting to steal delegate slots you didn't earn, outright theft of delegate slots you didn't earn. Then after stealing those delegate slots filing lawsuits demanding the right to vote your conscience in effect NOT representing the rights of the people who actually voted! Principled actions??? Party over principal?? Indeed, phony Republicans on the loose, libertarian con artists!

Yes indeed, I do support my party over your demonstrated, supposed principled actions!

Bob

[one4freedomcaptain of 100]

You and your guys declaring party over principal is laughable! I see your so called principled people at the state party conventions, you people certainly have your moments, booing, yelling, screaming when things don't go your way, attempting to steal delegate slots you didn't earn, outright theft of delegate slots you didn't earn. Then after stealing those delegate slots filing lawsuits demanding the right to vote your conscience in effect NOT representing the rights of the people who actually voted! Principled actions??? Party over principal?? Indeed, phony Republicans on the loose, libertarian con artists!

Yes indeed, I do support my party over your demonstrated, supposed principled actions!

Bob

C'mon, Bob. You can do better than that. Your rebuttal doesn't even touch the accusations. You are just trying to divert attention away by using the same word "principle" and making accusations against the messenger. Showing that there are people from the Paul camp that show a lack of integrity doesn't do anything to show you actually have it. Address the issues head on.

Your claimed principles you hold which make you choose Mitt are:
1. He has the Priesthood, and
2. He has a chance of winning.

You have shown explicitly that you will not stick to these principles in the cases of:
1. Harry Reid, and
2. Joseph Smith

The only principle you have shown (to repeat from OI) is that you will not go against the party. This has nothing to do with the values or tactics of Ron Paul's campaign. This is about the (non)principled decision to support Mitt Romney.

[InfoWarrior82captain of 1,000]

Actually, I expected the response.

So rather than saying throwing away your vote is a sin, Bob should have clarified that it is a sin unless you throw it away on a priesthood holder.

Out of one side of his mouth he says that Romney's past positions etc are trumped by TWO things - that he has the priesthood and that he has a chance to win.

But I just wanted to clarify that the chance to win argument is a principle that bob IS willing to waver on as long as he has the priesthood.

But wait! When asked if he would support Harry Reid the priesthood holder, bobby says NO! He's a democrat!

So we see bobby's final "principle" that he won;t waver on - loyalty to the PARTY. Well done komrade bobby! Party over principle! Not that I haven;t understood that about you for a long time, but it is nice to finally get the last piece of the puzzle.

Well there it is. Party over principle, Bob. I'm glad my grandpa instilled principle over party in his son and his son in me. It's not too late for you.

You and your guys declaring party over principal is laughable! I see your so called principled people at the state party conventions, you people certainly have your moments, booing, yelling, screaming when things don't go your way, attempting to steal delegate slots you didn't earn, outright theft of delegate slots you didn't earn. Then after stealing those delegate slots filing lawsuits demanding the right to vote your conscience in effect NOT representing the rights of the people who actually voted! Principled actions??? Party over principal?? Indeed, phony Republicans on the loose, libertarian con artists!

Yes indeed, I do support my party over your demonstrated, supposed principled actions!

Bob

Pathetic Bob. Just pathetic. Don't even try and pretend you haven't the foggiest as to why those RP supporters were booing and shouting! LOL because you know full well why. Secondly, the only delegate slots that were stolen we're the ones the GOP took from Paul. It's not working anymore bob. Everyone has already seen the YouTube videos. Are our eyes and ears lying to us?






















There's a TON more. I can go on if you want...