Romney should run for Senate.

[Lizzy60]

In writing Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, (under the guidance of whom?) the the Founders made it clear that it was the responsibility of Congress "to coin money" and "to declare war", among other things. Congress was not given the right to abrogate those responsibilities. Congress has, in fact, abrogated those responsibilities, claiming that in voting for the Fed they could allow it to "print" money, and that in "honouring" a UN mandate they could allow the US President to send US forces into battle. Both of those acts are wrong - unconstitutional.

A priesthood holder who would say that God has not spoken to man since Moses and the bush, who would say that he supports "a woman's right to choose", and who does not honour the principles of the US Constitution (especially after all that the Lord, prophets and apostles have said about it) will not get my vote regardless of how many other voters vote for him.

So, you don't believe in agency? The one thing each of us has, the right to make a choice. A right given to us from God. It seems a woman's right to choose is part of agency.

You prefer to take Lucifer's approach and force a woman so she can't choose. Haven't you twisted things up?

Wow. You support a woman's RIGHT to MURDER her child.
Do you support a man's right to rape a child?

I see no difference. Except that the raped child is still alive, although extremely damaged.

[Crackers]

In writing Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, (under the guidance of whom?) the the Founders made it clear that it was the responsibility of Congress "to coin money" and "to declare war", among other things. Congress was not given the right to abrogate those responsibilities. Congress has, in fact, abrogated those responsibilities, claiming that in voting for the Fed they could allow it to "print" money, and that in "honouring" a UN mandate they could allow the US President to send US forces into battle. Both of those acts are wrong - unconstitutional.

A priesthood holder who would say that God has not spoken to man since Moses and the bush, who would say that he supports "a woman's right to choose", and who does not honour the principles of the US Constitution (especially after all that the Lord, prophets and apostles have said about it) will not get my vote regardless of how many other voters vote for him.

So, you don't believe in agency? The one thing each of us has, the right to make a choice. A right given to us from God. It seems a woman's right to choose is part of agency.

You prefer to take Lucifer's approach and force a woman so she can't choose. Haven't you twisted things up?

You can reduce any act to the idea that someone made a choice to do it. There's no debate there. We have agency to choose any nefarious or sinful act we desire, including murder. That doesn't mean we should make these acts socially acceptable or legal. "It's okay to kill the child because we believe in agency. It's okay to commit adultery because we believe in agency. It's okay to molest children because we believe in agency. As a LDS, it's okay to smoke and drink, because we believe in agency...."

Edit: Kudos to Lizzy for saying it more succinctly.

[Arenera]

In writing Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, (under the guidance of whom?) the the Founders made it clear that it was the responsibility of Congress "to coin money" and "to declare war", among other things. Congress was not given the right to abrogate those responsibilities. Congress has, in fact, abrogated those responsibilities, claiming that in voting for the Fed they could allow it to "print" money, and that in "honouring" a UN mandate they could allow the US President to send US forces into battle. Both of those acts are wrong - unconstitutional.

A priesthood holder who would say that God has not spoken to man since Moses and the bush, who would say that he supports "a woman's right to choose", and who does not honour the principles of the US Constitution (especially after all that the Lord, prophets and apostles have said about it) will not get my vote regardless of how many other voters vote for him.

So, you don't believe in agency? The one thing each of us has, the right to make a choice. A right given to us from God. It seems a woman's right to choose is part of agency.

You prefer to take Lucifer's approach and force a woman so she can't choose. Haven't you twisted things up?

Wow. You support a woman's RIGHT to MURDER her child.
Do you support a man's right to rape a child?

I see no difference. Except that the raped child is still alive, although extremely damaged.

Mormons believe the US Constitution was inspired of God, through the men that wrote it. Since it was written, there have been amendments and other laws written to govern the US society. It seems to me that some "contitutionalists" prefer to only use the original document. Sorry, things have changed over 200 years. Less than 1% of the people consider this.

It is legal to have an abortion in the United States. A woman can make the choice.

I wouldn't make that choice, that is my agency.

If people would live the 10 commandments, things would be great. In Zion, all are equal. Trump wouldn't do well there.

Romney would be a great senator. If he runs, he will win in a landslide.

[Crackers]

The idea that he is able to win won't make him a good senator. It only means he can win a race. Is that all you're looking for in your elected officials? Because you can have "great" officials every time if you just follow the polls and that's all you want.

[Arenera]

The idea that he is able to win won't make him a good senator. It only means he can win a race. Is that all you're looking for in your elected officials? Because you can have "great" officials every time if you just follow the polls and that's all you want.

Romney is a good man. A good Mormon man. A good Mormon, husband and grandfather. A man who saved the corrupt Utah Olympics and made a model of running a winter Olympics. A good man who served as Governor of a democrat state.

Romney is well known. That is why he would win in a landslide in Utah. Maybe he will help save the Constitution when it hangs by a thread.

[solonan]

He'd help in continuing the hanging of the constitution. He speaks out of both sides of his month to the point I wonder if he even knows what his stands are.

[Lizzy60]

The fact that abortion is legal in the US only shows how despicable and corrupt this nation has become. The fact that Romney supports abortion shows that he is even more despicable and corrupt, because he should know better. His "priesthood" is a farce.

He is the worst kind of example of a Mormon.

[Arenera]

The fact that abortion is legal in the US only shows how despicable and corrupt this nation has become. The fact that Romney supports abortion shows that he is even more despicable and corrupt, because he should know better. His "priesthood" is a farce.

He is the worst kind of example of a Mormon.

Not really. He is a good priesthood holder. He is a good example: husband on one wife, father of five sons, grandfather. His example in life shows the right way to happiness. He doesn't agree with the examples of Trump and Moore.

You will be happy to see his priesthood in action...

[Fiannan]

Romney is well known. That is why he would win in a landslide in Utah. Maybe he will help save the Constitution when it hangs by a thread.

Yes, so illuminated that his bearing the light of truth to the masses in these troubled times could inspire the world.

[Arenera]

Let's see, some of these inspiring people...

Speaking on the subject of Moore's service in Vietnam as well as “honor and integrity” Bannon accused Romney of hiding “behind” his religion, when the 19-year-old Romney deferred Vietnam service to answer a mission call for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: “You went to France to be a missionary while guys were dying in rice paddies in Vietnam.”

Putting aside that Bannon's political idol, Donald Trump, also deferred service during the Vietnam War, the subtle suggestion that one’s service in the military might be a reason to overlook disturbing allegations does a severe disservice to the country's men and women in uniform.

While Bannon is familiar with the accusations against Moore regarding his alleged treatment of teenage girls, if he really cares to learn about "honor and integrity" he would do well to read about Romney's efforts to rescue a teenage girl back in the summer of 1996.

Speaking on the subject of Moore's service in Vietnam as well as “honor and integrity” Bannon accused Romney of hiding “behind” his religion, when the 19-year-old Romney deferred Vietnam service to answer a mission call for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: “You went to France to be a missionary while guys were dying in rice paddies in Vietnam.”

According to reports by the Boston Globe, Romney temporarily shut down his firm, Bain Capitol, to devote its sizable resources to search for the teenage daughter of one his colleagues who had gone missing after a night out in New York City.

Romney chartered a flight from Boston to New York, and, according to the Globe, "set up elaborate search parties, mapping out territories of New York City and turning to a public relations firm for help. Within days, they’d been featured on TV news, and the teenager who had taken (the daughter) home to Montauk, N.Y. — where she was shivering through detox after a massive dose of ecstasy — called hoping for a reward."

Meanwhile, that same summer, while Romney was saving a woman in distress, Bannon was facing misdemeanor charges in California for domestic violence and battery. Bannon pled not guilty.

And while the case was dismissed when the “victim/witness” was “unable to be located,” the police reports note that Bannon’s then-wife said she had been forcefully grabbed by her neck and wrist (which were photographed). According to the report, when she attempted to call the police, Bannon smashed the phone.

Bannon, she said, had a history of physical disputes with her.

Honor? Integrity?

[JK4Woods]

Hatch needs to be put out to pasture with John McCain...
Romney can be with them mowing for hay.

[sandman45]

In writing Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, (under the guidance of whom?) the the Founders made it clear that it was the responsibility of Congress "to coin money" and "to declare war", among other things. Congress was not given the right to abrogate those responsibilities. Congress has, in fact, abrogated those responsibilities, claiming that in voting for the Fed they could allow it to "print" money, and that in "honouring" a UN mandate they could allow the US President to send US forces into battle. Both of those acts are wrong - unconstitutional.

A priesthood holder who would say that God has not spoken to man since Moses and the bush, who would say that he supports "a woman's right to choose", and who does not honour the principles of the US Constitution (especially after all that the Lord, prophets and apostles have said about it) will not get my vote regardless of how many other voters vote for him.

So, you don't believe in agency? The one thing each of us has, the right to make a choice. A right given to us from God. It seems a woman's right to choose is part of agency.

You prefer to take Lucifer's approach and force a woman so she can't choose. Haven't you twisted things up?

What about that child she is aborting... he or she doesn't get a say in this...so abortion is giving the woman a choice but it also takes away agency or choice of that unborn child.

[brianj]

So, you don't believe in agency? The one thing each of us has, the right to make a choice. A right given to us from God. It seems a woman's right to choose is part of agency.

You prefer to take Lucifer's approach and force a woman so she can't choose. Haven't you twisted things up?

Yes, I prefer to take Lucifer's approach.

If a man chooses to be intimate with a woman and she gets pregnant, HE has no choice. There have been several documented cases of women poking pin holes in condoms and doing more disturbing things to get themselves pregnant, and at that point the philosophy of feminism provides only two responses. The first is: "You want the kid? Too bad, pig. She has the right to choose abortion." The second is: "You made your choice when you were intimate with her. So shut up and pay, pig."

Arenera, I challenge you to accept your hypocrisy on this issue. You probably have no issue with forcing a man to pay a large amount of money over the next 20 years because he made a choice, or making the man suffer the pain of knowing the woman murdered his baby because he made a choice. Yet at the same time you pretend that the woman who willingly chose to participate in sexual relations did not exercise her free agency at that time, so she shouldn't have to suffer through pregnancy and giving away or raising a child because she should have the choice she didn't have of willingly having sex or not.

[Arenera]

So, you don't believe in agency? The one thing each of us has, the right to make a choice. A right given to us from God. It seems a woman's right to choose is part of agency.

You prefer to take Lucifer's approach and force a woman so she can't choose. Haven't you twisted things up?

Yes, I prefer to take Lucifer's approach.

If a man chooses to be intimate with a woman and she gets pregnant, HE has no choice. There have been several documented cases of women poking pin holes in condoms and doing more disturbing things to get themselves pregnant, and at that point the philosophy of feminism provides only two responses. The first is: "You want the kid? Too bad, pig. She has the right to choose abortion." The second is: "You made your choice when you were intimate with her. So shut up and pay, pig."

Arenera, I challenge you to accept your hypocrisy on this issue. You probably have no issue with forcing a man to pay a large amount of money over the next 20 years because he made a choice, or making the man suffer the pain of knowing the woman murdered his baby because he made a choice. Yet at the same time you pretend that the woman who willingly chose to participate in sexual relations did not exercise her free agency at that time, so she shouldn't have to suffer through pregnancy and giving away or raising a child because she should have the choice she didn't have of willingly having sex or not.

I recommend people follow the 10 commandments, then they don’t have unwanted pregnancies. I don’t do abortions.

[Ezra]

So, you don't believe in agency? The one thing each of us has, the right to make a choice. A right given to us from God. It seems a woman's right to choose is part of agency.

You prefer to take Lucifer's approach and force a woman so she can't choose. Haven't you twisted things up?

Yes, I prefer to take Lucifer's approach.

If a man chooses to be intimate with a woman and she gets pregnant, HE has no choice. There have been several documented cases of women poking pin holes in condoms and doing more disturbing things to get themselves pregnant, and at that point the philosophy of feminism provides only two responses. The first is: "You want the kid? Too bad, pig. She has the right to choose abortion." The second is: "You made your choice when you were intimate with her. So shut up and pay, pig."

Arenera, I challenge you to accept your hypocrisy on this issue. You probably have no issue with forcing a man to pay a large amount of money over the next 20 years because he made a choice, or making the man suffer the pain of knowing the woman murdered his baby because he made a choice. Yet at the same time you pretend that the woman who willingly chose to participate in sexual relations did not exercise her free agency at that time, so she shouldn't have to suffer through pregnancy and giving away or raising a child because she should have the choice she didn't have of willingly having sex or not.

I recommend people follow the 10 commandments, then they don’t have unwanted pregnancies. I don’t do abortions.

Abortion is murder Is my opinion. One god shares I’m completely sure. Except in some very very small instances.

Murder is illegal.

Abortions shouldn’t be legal under current law as it is a contradiction. murder is illegal but murdering a unborn child somehow ok???? Not sure how that works.



If abortion was illegal as it should be women still have the agency to choose to murder their unborn child. But they should be treated equally in my opinion.

So women have a right to choose. But they should have the consequences in this life as well as the next.

Im guessing Brianj agrees.

[Irrelevant]

This thread, so far, is a good example of a unlikely chiasmus. It starts off with a recognition of how bad Hatch is and offering support for Romney. It ends with a sterling endorsement of Romney, by Hatch, a known betrayer of his oath of office. Gee, if a liar and traitor endorses a guy, let's all vote for him.

Such delicious irony on full display. The children of the covenant are so confused.

+1

[Fiannan]

It is legal to have an abortion in the United States. A woman can make the choice.

I wouldn't make that choice, that is my agency.

Why not? Why would you either not have an abortion or support someone carrying your child aborting it? I am curious as to why you would want it legal but at the same time you would not do it.

[Silver]

Well, it's become perfectly obvious to each participant (minus one) on this thread that reason and logic are great gifts which were not handed out in equal measure to all the denizens of planet Earth.

Here's a little image that will brighten your day. Monopoly anyone?

end the fed.jpg (129.59 KiB) Viewed 718 times

[Arenera]

As I said in the OP, Romney is not popular at LDSFF.

I have also learned that less than 1% of people who promote the "Constitution" have no support for their belief set. This doesn't mean their belief set is right or wrong, there just isn't any support.

[Lizzy60]

There is never any support for those with righteous principles. How many people in the world are LDS? How many LDS are truly living the Gospel? Isaiah speaks of a tithe of a tithe -- which happens to be 1%. We have reached the days where the majority of people choose evil, in one way or another. Whether it's support for abortion, or abandoning the Constitution, or plain old Phariseeism, and seeking the praise of the world. There are very few who truly desire to follow Christ. Even in the Church, many say they will go only so far, and no farther.

[WikiUp]

In writing Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, (under the guidance of whom?) the the Founders made it clear that it was the responsibility of Congress "to coin money" and "to declare war", among other things. Congress was not given the right to abrogate those responsibilities. Congress has, in fact, abrogated those responsibilities, claiming that in voting for the Fed they could allow it to "print" money, and that in "honouring" a UN mandate they could allow the US President to send US forces into battle. Both of those acts are wrong - unconstitutional.

A priesthood holder who would say that God has not spoken to man since Moses and the bush, who would say that he supports "a woman's right to choose", and who does not honour the principles of the US Constitution (especially after all that the Lord, prophets and apostles have said about it) will not get my vote regardless of how many other voters vote for him.

So, you don't believe in agency? The one thing each of us has, the right to make a choice. A right given to us from God. It seems a woman's right to choose is part of agency.

You prefer to take Lucifer's approach and force a woman so she can't choose. Haven't you twisted things up?

Some reality is needed in this topic.

I believe a women's "right to choose" is to "choose" to become pregnant or not. Her agency is to "choose" engage in sin or not. Once her agency "choice" has resulted in a de facto "choice" to become pregnant has been made, the woman has the responsibility to live up to the consequence of her "choice". A living being is not a choice; it is a child and a responsibility.

Very crudely stated: The "choice" is to keep her legs closed or not.

[Arenera]

In writing Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, (under the guidance of whom?) the the Founders made it clear that it was the responsibility of Congress "to coin money" and "to declare war", among other things. Congress was not given the right to abrogate those responsibilities. Congress has, in fact, abrogated those responsibilities, claiming that in voting for the Fed they could allow it to "print" money, and that in "honouring" a UN mandate they could allow the US President to send US forces into battle. Both of those acts are wrong - unconstitutional.

A priesthood holder who would say that God has not spoken to man since Moses and the bush, who would say that he supports "a woman's right to choose", and who does not honour the principles of the US Constitution (especially after all that the Lord, prophets and apostles have said about it) will not get my vote regardless of how many other voters vote for him.

So, you don't believe in agency? The one thing each of us has, the right to make a choice. A right given to us from God. It seems a woman's right to choose is part of agency.

You prefer to take Lucifer's approach and force a woman so she can't choose. Haven't you twisted things up?

Some reality is needed in this topic.

I believe a women's "right to choose" is to "choose" to become pregnant or not. Her agency is to "choose" engage in sin or not. Once her agency "choice" has resulted in a de facto "choice" to become pregnant has been made, the woman has the responsibility to live up to the consequence of her "choice". A living being is not a choice; it is a child and a responsibility.

Very crudely stated: The "choice" is to keep her legs closed or not.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you, so abortion is legal in the United States. Legs have nothing to do with it. And why do you put all the blame on the woman. You have a gender bias!

[WikiUp]

The fact that abortion is legal in the US only shows how despicable and corrupt this nation has become. The fact that Romney supports abortion shows that he is even more despicable and corrupt, because he should know better. His "priesthood" is a farce.

He is the worst kind of example of a Mormon.

Not really. He is a good priesthood holder. He is a good example: husband on one wife, father of five sons, grandfather. His example in life shows the right way to happiness. He doesn't agree with the examples of Trump and Moore.

You will be happy to see his priesthood in action...

By their fruits ye shall know them ...

D&C 121:39 - "We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion."

D&C 121;34 - Behold, there are many called, but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen?

D&C 121:35 - Because their hearts are set so much upon the honors of the world, and aspire to the honors of men, that they do not learn this one lesson -

D&C 121:36 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."

[WikiUp]

In writing Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, (under the guidance of whom?) the the Founders made it clear that it was the responsibility of Congress "to coin money" and "to declare war", among other things. Congress was not given the right to abrogate those responsibilities. Congress has, in fact, abrogated those responsibilities, claiming that in voting for the Fed they could allow it to "print" money, and that in "honouring" a UN mandate they could allow the US President to send US forces into battle. Both of those acts are wrong - unconstitutional.

A priesthood holder who would say that God has not spoken to man since Moses and the bush, who would say that he supports "a woman's right to choose", and who does not honour the principles of the US Constitution (especially after all that the Lord, prophets and apostles have said about it) will not get my vote regardless of how many other voters vote for him.

So, you don't believe in agency? The one thing each of us has, the right to make a choice. A right given to us from God. It seems a woman's right to choose is part of agency.

You prefer to take Lucifer's approach and force a woman so she can't choose. Haven't you twisted things up?

Some reality is needed in this topic.

I believe a women's "right to choose" is to "choose" to become pregnant or not. Her agency is to "choose" engage in sin or not. Once her agency "choice" has resulted in a de facto "choice" to become pregnant has been made, the woman has the responsibility to live up to the consequence of her "choice". A living being is not a choice; it is a child and a responsibility.

Very crudely stated: The "choice" is to keep her legs closed or not.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you, so abortion is legal in the United States. Legs have nothing to do with it. And why do you put all the blame on the woman. You have a gender bias!

No gender bias - you're the one presenting it is a women's choice. I am addressing the women's choice. Men have their own "choices" to make and consequences to face.

Just because something is "LEGAL" does not equate that a matter as being "MORAL". Can we honestly say that the Roe v. Wade decision is a moral decision? The U.s. Supreme Court long ago - and before Roe v. Wade - yielded up the credential of being a moral institution.

By their fruits ye shall know them.

[Arenera]

So, you don't believe in agency? The one thing each of us has, the right to make a choice. A right given to us from God. It seems a woman's right to choose is part of agency.

You prefer to take Lucifer's approach and force a woman so she can't choose. Haven't you twisted things up?

Some reality is needed in this topic.

I believe a women's "right to choose" is to "choose" to become pregnant or not. Her agency is to "choose" engage in sin or not. Once her agency "choice" has resulted in a de facto "choice" to become pregnant has been made, the woman has the responsibility to live up to the consequence of her "choice". A living being is not a choice; it is a child and a responsibility.

Very crudely stated: The "choice" is to keep her legs closed or not.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you, so abortion is legal in the United States. Legs have nothing to do with it. And why do you put all the blame on the woman. You have a gender bias!

No gender bias - you're the one presenting it is a women's choice. I am addressing the women's choice. Men have their own "choices" to make and consequences to face.

Just because something is "LEGAL" does not equate that a matter as being "MORAL". Can we honestly say that the Roe v. Wade decision is a moral decision? The U.s. Supreme Court long ago - and before Roe v. Wade - yielded up the credential of being a moral institution.

By their fruits ye shall know them.

So you want to break the law?

12 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.