Mitt Romney

Discuss principles, issues, news and candidates related to upcoming elections and voting.
Post Reply
User avatar
Mark
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6929

Re: Mitt Romney

Post by Mark »

Chasing your desired ends and seeking evidence of your own preconceived conclusions is the work and path the devil promotes. Seeking truth, light, and knowledge and then acting on it is the correct path.

I don't disagree at all with you Brandon but with no disrespect intended lets get real here. I don't think that there is a person on this site who doesn't have some pre-conceived notions and conclusions regarding some conspiracy or another and doesn't seek to obtain any evidence they can to justify that pre-conceived notion. Just look at 9-11 for example. Most here are convinced that govt played a part in the downing of the towers for multiple reasons. Don't you think that those who believe this will spend more of their efforts into finding tidbits that back this assertion than they will in trying to find holes that discredit that same assertion? Once again I ask who here doesn't have pre-conceived notions that have led them to certain conclusions? I'd like to meet him or her. They are a rare bird indeed.

User avatar
ChelC
The Law
Posts: 5982
Location: Utah

Re: Mitt Romney

Post by ChelC »

Of course we all do, we're not dough heads. We've drawn conclusion from life experience. The real test is whether we are humble enough to consider being wrong. I've been proven wrong enough that I try to view everything with skepticism, but I still fail.

Here are some non political examples:

When I was childless and saw naughty kids in the store I thought it was because the parents never gave them a well earned swat on the butt.
Now: My kids are the naughtiest ones in the store.

I thought food allergies were largely made up by weirdo granola people.
Now: I found out that I have food allergies.

I thought mental illness was largely an excuse for bad behavior/whiny people.
Now: My son battles what we believe to be bipolar disorder.

Related to that, I thought mothers who medicated their kids were lazy moms who just couldn't deal with the normal behaviors of children.
Now: After severe violent rages often lasting hours and manic episodes of no sleep, I have sought treatment for my child with medication.

There have been sooo many incidents like this in my life that I try to remain open to the possibility that I'm a dim wit. Still sometimes I think I know everything. Human nature is a buttkicker.

User avatar
ldsff
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1924

Re: Mitt Romney

Post by ldsff »

ChelC wrote:Of course we all do, we're not dough heads. We've drawn conclusion from life experience. The real test is whether we are humble enough to consider being wrong. I've been proven wrong enough that I try to view everything with skepticism, but I still fail.

Here are some non political examples:

When I was childless and saw naughty kids in the store I thought it was because the parents never gave them a well earned swat on the butt.
Now: My kids are the naughtiest ones in the store.

I thought food allergies were largely made up by weirdo granola people.
Now: I found out that I have food allergies.

I thought mental illness was largely an excuse for bad behavior/whiny people.
Now: My son battles what we believe to be bipolar disorder.

Related to that, I thought mothers who medicated their kids were lazy moms who just couldn't deal with the normal behaviors of children.
Now: After severe violent rages often lasting hours and manic episodes of no sleep, I have sought treatment for my child with medication.

There have been sooo many incidents like this in my life that I try to remain open to the possibility that I'm a dim wit. Still sometimes I think I know everything. Human nature is a buttkicker.

Calling them weirdo granola people doesn't seem real productive. :roll:

lundbaek
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 11123
Location: Mesa, Arizona

Re: Mitt Romney

Post by lundbaek »

Neither does your above post, ldsff.

Jew
captain of 50
Posts: 93

Re: Mitt Romney

Post by Jew »

lundbaek wrote:Neither does your above post, ldsff.
inside joke.

User avatar
masterdmjg
captain of 100
Posts: 309
Location: AZ
Contact:

Re: Mitt Romney

Post by masterdmjg »

BackBlast wrote:
masterdmjg wrote:As with Mitt Romney, so with everything else. As I've watched and contemplated all of these political rumblings over the past year and a half, as well as other fundamental questions, one of the only things I've come to feel completely certain of is you can choose what to believe, and you can find any amount of evidence to back it up. If you want to believe Mitt Romney is a socialist, you can find information supporting it. If you believe he would be a good president, you can find information supporting that opinion, too.
...
There, I've taken my noncommittal stance again. If you want to believe Mitt is an evil machine-serving conspirator, you can go out and find evidence to back up those claims. If you think he's a good guy, you can find proof of that, too. In many things, it would appear truth is mostly in the eye of the beholder.
Truer words were never spoken..
I disagree.

I don't buy this logic that essentially all angles are equally valid and evidences equally weighted behind them. People can and will believe what they want, that's the nature of agency, but there is one set of truth, it doesn't exist in multiple conflicting states simultaneously. I understand you are essentially speaking up for agency and explaining what people effectively do, but you give no weight to the value of the real truth of the matter. The ability to discern the correct state with the limited available information is a skill and spiritual gift that is to be sought after, as it grants wisdom, direction, and leads you on correct paths and it's development stems from the internal desire to REALLY KNOW the real truth. Deception is a tool of the devil to blind and enslave, and those that allow themselves to be deceived, end up on this path of error and it's consequences.

Chasing your desired ends and seeking evidence of your own preconceived conclusions is the work and path the devil promotes. Seeking truth, light, and knowledge and then acting on it is the correct path.

Brandon
I'm afraid if you're saying there is always one undeniable, universal, truth that we have to follow, you will be hard pressed to back it up. The commandment is: thou shalt not kill. The fact is, God justifies killing (take Nephi with Laban) sometimes, and there is no one fundamental "truth" that will always lead you to know when it's "o.k." and when it's not. If you were to take Nephi and judge him outside of the knowledge that God told him to kill Laban, you would assume he is a murderer and possibly an evil guy.

So to be able to judge a person by your own estimation of "truth" when that person comes from completely separate circumstances and experiences, is to expect something that is very difficult.

I know it is a concept that many people are going to reject, but facts are only facts according to the heed we give to them. But all of us pick and choose the facts (or truths) we want to surround ourselves with. I'm not saying it's good or evil, I'm just saying it is what it is. And what usually happens, is people take their experience and their opinions, and they make a judgment, in this case, Mitt Romney is a bad guy/good guy. Depending on which stand one wants to take, they then will look for evidence, facts, or "truth" that supports their idea of who Romney is.

An easy way to see it is when people make sweeping proclamations like, "he's naive," "he's a socialist," "he's a globalist," "a CFR-stooge" (which I have still never been able to confirm but people will tell me every day of the week that it is a fact, and never show me where their gleaning that "truth" from), etc.

The funny thing is, I end up sounding like I support Mitt Romney, which is not what I want to say at all. All I'm saying is, if you want to find the bad, the evil, in someone, it won't be hard to do. We all are human, we all sin continuously. If you want to find the good in a person, you can do that, too. In general, I would say most people do not lie on either side of a good/evil fence. There is a whole spectrum, and if you think you really know a person well enough, that you've only seen in clips on YouTube, or CNN, or in the newspaper, or in a biography, enough to judge where they lie in relation to the "fence," most of the time you won't be able to do that. That's why I reserve that judgment for God, who is the only one who has enough information to determine such a matter.

I personally feel like we expect our presidential and congressional candidates to be "superhuman." We trumpet their failings, because we hold them up to a higher standard than we hold "regular" people. And on that note, at least what I tend to do is sometimes hold others to a higher standard than I hold myself. We minimize their triumphs, because we can always refute them with another failing. We expect to agree with a candidate 100% of the time, even though this will never happen. If they do one thing that we feel goes against the Constitution, we won't forgive them. They say one thing wrong on camera, and we want them to be exiled to Guantánamo (and if Romney became president, incidentally, we would have more opportunity to do that). We don't want to allow that people are more complex than just good or bad.

For me, it comes down to, the golden rule. Unless I have overwhelming evidence, which, as I say, is very difficult to come by, and feel absolutely sure about, I try to give a person the benefit of the doubt. I wouldn't want people to judge me as evil just because they knew or saw one of my weak sides, and then determined who I was based on that "fact." So I try not to do that to others. It is very hard, though, that's for sure, for me and for everyone else.

buffalo_girl
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7017

Re: Mitt Romney

Post by buffalo_girl »

Ron Paul taught me by his word and DEED how the structure of a constitution allows all legislation, treaties, interaction between branches of the government, conduct of elected and non-elected representatives, rights of individuals and rights of states to be weighed and measured. Increasingly, that standard is debased and dishonored.

I don't think Romney knows there is a Constitution for the United States let alone its value or use.

lundbaek
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 11123
Location: Mesa, Arizona

Re: Mitt Romney

Post by lundbaek »

Could it be that Mitt Romney thinks the US Constitution and the constitutional republic the Founding Fathers gave us are outmoded, not responsive to present-day conditions of life and living; not sufficient to meet and solve present-day problems; and that we need a modern, up-to-date system of government? Seems apparent he considers it no longer appropriate that Congress declare war, and no longer advisable that we eschew socialism and protect free agency.

User avatar
Mark
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6929

Re: Mitt Romney

Post by Mark »

Isn't it interesting how people view things so differently. Buffalo Girl and Lundbaek see Romney's stance on the constitution and our God given rights so much differently than does this fellow below. Masterdmjg is right. Truth IS in the eye of the beholder..

Mitt Romney: pro-Constitution, anti-secular extremism


Michael Gaynor Michael Gaynor
December 7, 2007


Thanks be to God for Mitt Romney, his faith in God and America and his fidelity to America's Constitution.
________________________________________

America's Founders would be disgusted with the noxious notion that God and religion should be barred from the public square but delighted with Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney's awesome "Faith in America" speech articulately refuting it.

America's amazing religious heritage is irrefutable.

America's Declaration of Independence humbly appealed to "the Supreme Judge of the world" and proclaimed "a firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence," as well as referring to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" and a "Creator" who endowed "all men . . . with certain inalienable Rights."

America's Constitution not only referred to "the Blessings of Liberty" in its preamble, but excluded Sundays in calculating the time in which a presidential veto must be issued. It deliberately integrated religion into public affairs, while not compelling the irreligious to pretend to be religious, by providing for oaths or affirmations. If the Framers had intended to separate church and state completely and to embrace secular extremism, then they would have provided only for affirmations.

John Adams:

"[The Fourth of July] ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever.

"You will think me transported with enthusiasm, but I am not. I am well aware of the toil and blood and treasure that it will cost to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States. Yet through all the gloom I can see the rays of ravishing light and glory. I can see that the end is worth more than all the means; that posterity will triumph in that day's transaction, even though we (may regret) it, which I trust in God we shall not."

John Quincey Adams, July 4, 1837:

"Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the World, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day.

"Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the Progress of the Gospel dispensation?

"Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth?

"That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity and gave to the world the first irrevocable pledge of the fulfillment of the prophecies announced directly from Heaven at the birth of the Savior and predicted by the greatest of the Hebrew prophets 600 years before."

Mitt Romney, December 6, 2007:

"We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America — the religion of secularism. They are wrong.

"The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation 'Under God' and in God, we do indeed trust.

"We should acknowledge the Creator as did the founders — in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty.'"

Thanks be to God for Mitt Romney, his faith in God and America and his fidelity to America's Constitution.

As I wrote in "The U.S. Supreme Court arbitrarily took separation of church and state much too far," posted on July 19, 2005:

"In 1947, in Everson v. Board of Education, the United States Supreme Court disregarded history and misconstrued the Constitution at the urging of the secular extremist minority and the expense of the overwhelming religious majority in ruling that neither federal nor state governments 'can pass laws which aid...all religions....'

"In so ruling, the Court presumptuously substituted its personal view for the views of those who founded the United States, wrote and ratified the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution, and adopted the First Amendment and misused a much-quoted letter in which Thomas Jefferson had described the First Amendment as 'building a wall of separation between church and state.'

"Travesties of justice in the name of separation of church and state that would outrage the people who founded the United States of America, drafted its Constitution and adopted its Bill of Rights have followed, from the banning of voluntary nondenominational prayer in public schools to Ten Commandments displays in courthouses.

"Did the United States Constitution really require complete separation of church and state, prevent the United States government from acknowledging God and supporting religion generally, and compel the United States government and state governments to be strictly neutral as between religion and 'irreligion'?

"The answer is no.

"The contrary claims are secular extremist myths that need to be exposed."

"The First Amendment did not create a wall between church and state. It prohibited Congress from making a law 'respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'

"The kind of separation that was intended is suggested by Pierre L'Enfant's plan for a national cathedral. In 1791, Congress selected the site to be the capital of the United States. George Washington, previously President of the Constitutional Convention and then President of the United States, then commissioned L'Enfant to design an overall plan for the future seat of government. That plan included a church 'intended for national purposes, such as public prayer, thanksgiving, funeral orations, etc., and assigned to the special use of no particular Sect of denomination, but equally open to all.' The Founders and Framers favored governmental neutrality among denominations, but they never expected government to be barred from supporting religion generally to please a tiny Godless minority.

"Traditional nonsectarian acknowledgements of God by federal or state government, including the inclusion of 'under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance and 'In God We Trust' on United States currency, the recitation of a voluntary nondenominational prayer in a public school, and the display of a Ten Commandments monument in both federal and state courthouses, were intended to be constitutionally permissible, and coercive or sectarian governmental acts that establish a religion or prohibit or penalize the free exercise of religion (or personal choice NOT to be religious) were intended to be unconstitutional."

I also noted:

"The Founding Fathers were Christians, not secular humanists. John Adams wrote in 1813 that '[t]he general principles, on which the Fathers achieved independence, were . . . the general principles of Christianity . . . .' America's greatest chief justice, John Marshall, proclaimed in 1833: 'The American population is entirely Christian, and with us Christianity and Religion are identified. It would be strange indeed, if with such a people, our institutions did not presuppose Christianity, and did not often refer to it, and exhibit relations to it.' Marshall's statement was not literally true, of course; Americans were not even then entirely Christian. But Marshall's point was that Americans were a people of faith and their government should recognize it."

"Justice William Douglas put it well in Zorach v. Clauson (1952), in upholding a public school 'released time' program: 'We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being. . . . When the state encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of public events to sectarian needs, it follows the best of our traditions. For it then respects the religious nature of our people and accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs. To hold that it may not would be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups. That would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe. . . . [W]e find no constitutional requirement which makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion and to throw its weight against efforts to widen the effective scope of religious influence.'"

"Thomas Cooley, in Constitutional Limitations, stated that recognition of God and general support for religion were governmental prerogatives: '[T]he American constitutions contain no provisions which prohibit the authorities from such solemn recognition of a superintending Providence in public transactions and exercises as the general religious sentiment of mankind inspires. . . . Whatever may be the shades of religious belief, all must acknowledge the fitness of recognizing in important human affairs the superintending care and control of the Great Governor of the Universe, and of acknowledging with thanksgiving his boundless favors, or bowing in contrition when visited with the penalties of his broken laws.'

"Cooley concluded, 'No principle of constitutional law is violated when thanksgiving or fast days are appointed; when chaplains are designated for the army and navy; when legislative sessions are opened with prayer or the reading of the Scriptures; or when religious teaching is encouraged by a general exemption of the houses of religious worship from taxation.'

"Cooley emphasized that government needs to 'foster religious worship and religious institutions, as conservators of the public morals and valuable, if not indispensable, assistants to the preservation of the public order.' 'Public recognition of religious worship,' he wrote, is based on 'the same reasons of state policy which induce the government to aid institutions of charity and seminaries of instruction.'"

"The First Amendment was adopted to afford atheists a right to not recognize God, to be sure, but not to give them a right to preclude government from doing so or from supporting religion generally — as the seminal Commentaries on the Constitution (1833) by Justice Joseph Story shows.

"Justice Story explained that the First Amendment's object was 'to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment....' '[T]he duty of supporting religion,' Story emphasized, was 'very different from the right to force the consciences of other men, or to punish them for worshipping God in the manner which, they believe, their accountability to him requires.'

"Story conceived of governmental support for religion as a responsibility, rather than a prerogative, and not less important than respect for private religious beliefs. In his words, 'it is the especial duty of government to foster' religion, and this duty is 'wholly distinct from that of the right of private judgment in matters of religion, and of the freedom of public worship according to the dictates of one's conscience.'

"The current notion that public recognition of God and support for religion generally must yield to 'the right of private judgment' surely would have been absurd to Justice Story. In his view, 'the right of a society or government to interfere in matters of religion will hardly be contested by any persons, who believe that piety, religion, and morality are intimately connected with the well being of the state, and indispensable to the administration of civil justice.'

"According to Justice Story, 'Probably at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and of the amendment to it . . . , the general, if not the universal sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience and the freedom of religious worship,' and that 'an attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.'"

Mitt Romney recognized that the absolute separation of church and state eagerly embraced as politically helpful by then Senator John F. Kennedy during the 1960 presidential race is NOT what the Founders intended.

Not even Thomas Jefferson or James Madison, often treated as secular extremist "saints."

In misinterpreting the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, the United States Supreme Court misused a statement by Jefferson in an 1802 letter to a Baptist group that "the whole American people...declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state."

Jefferson's much quoted statement has been misinterpreted as a prohibition against government acknowledging God and supporting religion generally instead of only a protection of churches from governmental interference.

The "wall of separation" that Jefferson contemplated was a wall that keeps government from interfering with religious freedom, not a wall that keeps any religious expression out of schools, courthouses and other public places. Jefferson's own preamble to the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom explicitly acknowledged"Almighty God" as "the Holy Author of our religion" and "Lord both of body and mind."

Jefferson did not envision that the institutional separation he had in mind would ever be expanded to prohibit the United States from making reasonable accommodations to religion and recognizing God on its currency, in its courts or in its classrooms.

Jefferson's own actions as President demonstrate that his words were misinterpreted. As President, Jefferson attended voluntary and nondiscriminatory religious services held at the Capitol (as did President Madison). In 1803, Jefferson called on Congress to approve a treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians that provided for the United States to pay a Catholic missionary priest $100 a year. It was not an oversight. Jefferson later recommended two other Indian treaties with similar provisions. Jefferson also extended three times a pre-Constitution act that had designated lands "[f]or the sole use of Christian Indians and the Moravian Brethen missionaries for civilizing the Indians and promoting Christianity."

If the United States Supreme Court correctly interpreting the First Amendment in Everson v. Board of Education, then Jefferson himself repeatedly violated the Establishment Clause.

But, as a pre-Civil War House Judiciary Committee report set forth in detail, "an establishment of religion" is a term of art with a specific meaning: "What is an establishment of religion? It must have a creed, defining what a man must believe; it must have rights and ordinances, which believers must observe; it must have ministers of defined qualifications, to teach the doctrines and administer the rites; it must have tests for the submissive, and penalties for the nonconformist. There never was an establishment of religion without all these."

The secular extremists of the time had challenged the constitutionality of the military chaplaincy and both the Senate and the House of Representatives had rejected their challenge as revisionist history.

The Senate Judiciary Committee report is particularly instructive: "The clause speaks of 'an establishment of religion.' What is meant by that expression? It referred, without doubt, to the establishment which existed in the mother country, its meaning is to be ascertained by ascertaining what that establishment was. It was the connection with the state of a particular religious society, by its endowment, at public expense, in exclusion of, or in preference to, any other, by giving to its members exclusive political rights, and by compelling the attendance of those who rejected its communion upon its worship, or religious observances. These three particulars constituted that union of church and state of which our ancestors were so justly jealous, and against which they so wisely and carefully provided...."

The report noted that the Founders were "utterly opposed to any constraint upon the rights of conscience" and therefore they opposed the establishment of a religion in the same manner that the church of England was established, but clarified that the Founders "had no fear or jealousy of religion itself, nor did they wish to see us an irreligious people....They did not intend to spread over all the public authorities and the whole public action of the nation the dead and revolting spectacle of 'atheistic apathy.' Not so had the battles of the revolution been fought, and the deliberations of the revolutionary Congress conducted."

Mitt Romney is a person of faith supporting America's "symphony of faith," pledging constitutional fidelity and promising "judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests."

That's what a President of the United States should be!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Gaynor, born in New York in 1949, has been practicing law in New York for more than thirty years. A member of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, he is now a solo practitioner and admitted to practice in the New York State courts, the United States District Court for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

In 1969 Gaynor graduated magna cum laude, with honors in Social Science, from Hofstra University's innovative New College, then a three-year program supported by the Ford Foundation.

In 1972 Gaynor received his doctorate of jurisprudence degree from St. John's University School of Law, where he was in the top 10% of his class. He won the American Jurisprudence Award in Evidence and served as an editor of the Law Review and the St. Thomas More Institute for Legal Research. He wrote an article on the Pentagon Papers case for the Law Review and two articles on obscenity law for The Catholic Lawyer, in addition to overseeing the Law Review's commentary on significant developments in New York law, then called "The Quarterly Survey of New York Practice."

The day after graduating from St. John's Law School, Gaynor joined Fulton, Walter & Duncombe, a Manhattan law firm with offices at Rockefeller Center. Gaynor worked with that firm, first as an associate and then as a partner, through 1996. He engaged in general practice, involving corporate law, federal and state litigation, mergers and acquisitions, trusts and estates law, tax law, and other areas of law, on behalf of the firm's clients, including International Flavors & Fragrances Inc., Carvel Corporation, Tenneco Inc., UniWorld Group, Inc., and Palisades Geophysical Institute, Inc., as well as substantial charitable organizations, other corporations and individuals.

In 1997 Gaynor and Emily Bass formed the law firm of Gaynor & Bass. For more than five years, Gaynor & Bass conducted a general legal practice, emphasizing litigation, and represented corporations, individuals and a New York City labor union. Notably, Gaynor & Bass prevailed upon appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in a seminal copyright infringement case, Tasini v. New York Times, against newspaper and magazine publishers and Lexis-Nexis. The United States Supreme Court affirmed, 7 to 2, holding that the copyrights of freelance writers had been infringed when their work was put online without permission or compensation. Bass, as a solo practioner, had filed the case on behalf of a group of freelance writers, and the United States District Court had granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on liability.

Gaynor has written articles and letters on political, legal and religious issues for The National Law Journal, Legal Times, The New York Law Journal, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Post, The New York Daily News, Newsday, The Washington Times, Long Island Catholic, National Journal, and Time. He is a regular columnist at http://www.MichNews.com, http://www.renewamerica.us, http://www.webcommentary,com and http://www.postchronicle.com and has contributed to http://www.catholiconline.com, http://www.capitolhillcoffeehouse.com, http://www.catholiccitizens.org, http://www.yourcatholicvoice.com, http://www.intellectualconservative.com, http://www.starrjournal.com, http://www.therant.us, http://www.peoplepolitical.com and http://www.salon.com.

In 2005, Gaynor appeared as a guest on "Your World With Cavuto" (FOX Cable) to promote the eBay boycott that he initiated (see http://www.boycottebay.org/reports.html) and "The World Over With Raymond Arroyo" (EWTN) to discuss the legal implications of the tragic Terri Schiavo case. He can be contacted at GaynorMike@aol.com.

© Copyright 2007 by Michael Gaynor

buffalo_girl
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7017

Re: Mitt Romney

Post by buffalo_girl »

SOUNDS good.

WHAT does he DO?

lundbaek
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 11123
Location: Mesa, Arizona

Re: Mitt Romney

Post by lundbaek »

"Thanks be to God for Mitt Romney, his faith in God and America and his fidelity to America's Constitution." Hogwash!

Faith in God? Why did he fail to announce, when given the opportunity, that God spoke to Joseh Smith in 1820, instead of giving that Moses and the bush line. Did he not have faith that God would have supported him in such a pronouncement; one that he may himself have made as a young missionary?

Fidelity to America's Constitution? If one accepts Romney's exception of the fact that the Constitution prohibits welfare and foreign aid, and that Congress is to declare war, not the president, with or without consultation with lawyers, and that the 2nd Amendment has not been scrubbed. His close association in this presidential campaign with the likes of McCain and others who's agenda includes shredding the US COnstitution demonstrate lack of fidelity to America's Constitution.

Romney blew some great opportunities to teach some good lessons, both to LDSs and non-LDSs, but for whatever reasons, he seems to have sought the favour of people bent on destroying America.

User avatar
Bircher
captain of 100
Posts: 909
Location: Utah

Re: Mitt Romney

Post by Bircher »

masterdmjg wrote: I'm afraid if you're saying there is always one undeniable, universal, truth that we have to follow, you will be hard pressed to back it up. The commandment is: thou shalt not kill. The fact is, God justifies killing (take Nephi with Laban) sometimes, and there is no one fundamental "truth" that will always lead you to know when it's "o.k." and when it's not. If you were to take Nephi and judge him outside of the knowledge that God told him to kill Laban, you would assume he is a murderer and possibly an evil guy.

So to be able to judge a person by your own estimation of "truth" when that person comes from completely separate circumstances and experiences, is to expect something that is very difficult.

I know it is a concept that many people are going to reject, but facts are only facts according to the heed we give to them. But all of us pick and choose the facts (or truths) we want to surround ourselves with. I'm not saying it's good or evil, I'm just saying it is what it is. And what usually happens, is people take their experience and their opinions, and they make a judgment, in this case, Mitt Romney is a bad guy/good guy. Depending on which stand one wants to take, they then will look for evidence, facts, or "truth" that supports their idea of who Romney is.

An easy way to see it is when people make sweeping proclamations like, "he's naive," "he's a socialist," "he's a globalist," "a CFR-stooge" (which I have still never been able to confirm but people will tell me every day of the week that it is a fact, and never show me where their gleaning that "truth" from), etc.

The funny thing is, I end up sounding like I support Mitt Romney, which is not what I want to say at all. All I'm saying is, if you want to find the bad, the evil, in someone, it won't be hard to do. We all are human, we all sin continuously. If you want to find the good in a person, you can do that, too. In general, I would say most people do not lie on either side of a good/evil fence. There is a whole spectrum, and if you think you really know a person well enough, that you've only seen in clips on YouTube, or CNN, or in the newspaper, or in a biography, enough to judge where they lie in relation to the "fence," most of the time you won't be able to do that. That's why I reserve that judgment for God, who is the only one who has enough information to determine such a matter.

IMO, that seems to very morally relativistic. I think there are universal principles, but our understanding of them is off, making things appear to be contradictions when they are not.

We can come to a knowledge, and when we do we should not be ashamed of that.

True, we must be careful, too many people make wild accusations, etc. We do not want to be false accusers, or the boy who cried wolf, but there are evil people, and there is absolute truth.

If I am wrong and you are not saying what I think you said, I apologize.

In the book of Moroni, we are given the way to judge, in D&C we are commanded to expose the hidden things of darkness, wherein we know them, in the New Testament, we are told that by their fruits we shall know them.

Over and over again we are told to judge and to take action on that judgment... but we must be sure to judge righteously, otherwise....

User avatar
masterdmjg
captain of 100
Posts: 309
Location: AZ
Contact:

Re: Mitt Romney

Post by masterdmjg »

Bircher wrote:
masterdmjg wrote: I'm afraid if you're saying there is always one undeniable, universal, truth that we have to follow, you will be hard pressed to back it up. The commandment is: thou shalt not kill. The fact is, God justifies killing (take Nephi with Laban) sometimes, and there is no one fundamental "truth" that will always lead you to know when it's "o.k." and when it's not. If you were to take Nephi and judge him outside of the knowledge that God told him to kill Laban, you would assume he is a murderer and possibly an evil guy.

So to be able to judge a person by your own estimation of "truth" when that person comes from completely separate circumstances and experiences, is to expect something that is very difficult.

I know it is a concept that many people are going to reject, but facts are only facts according to the heed we give to them. But all of us pick and choose the facts (or truths) we want to surround ourselves with. I'm not saying it's good or evil, I'm just saying it is what it is. And what usually happens, is people take their experience and their opinions, and they make a judgment, in this case, Mitt Romney is a bad guy/good guy. Depending on which stand one wants to take, they then will look for evidence, facts, or "truth" that supports their idea of who Romney is.

An easy way to see it is when people make sweeping proclamations like, "he's naive," "he's a socialist," "he's a globalist," "a CFR-stooge" (which I have still never been able to confirm but people will tell me every day of the week that it is a fact, and never show me where their gleaning that "truth" from), etc.

The funny thing is, I end up sounding like I support Mitt Romney, which is not what I want to say at all. All I'm saying is, if you want to find the bad, the evil, in someone, it won't be hard to do. We all are human, we all sin continuously. If you want to find the good in a person, you can do that, too. In general, I would say most people do not lie on either side of a good/evil fence. There is a whole spectrum, and if you think you really know a person well enough, that you've only seen in clips on YouTube, or CNN, or in the newspaper, or in a biography, enough to judge where they lie in relation to the "fence," most of the time you won't be able to do that. That's why I reserve that judgment for God, who is the only one who has enough information to determine such a matter.

IMO, that seems to very morally relativistic. I think there are universal principles, but our understanding of them is off, making things appear to be contradictions when they are not.

We can come to a knowledge, and when we do we should not be ashamed of that.

True, we must be careful, too many people make wild accusations, etc. We do not want to be false accusers, or the boy who cried wolf, but there are evil people, and there is absolute truth.

If I am wrong and you are not saying what I think you said, I apologize.

In the book of Moroni, we are given the way to judge, in D&C we are commanded to expose the hidden things of darkness, wherein we know them, in the New Testament, we are told that by their fruits we shall know them.

Over and over again we are told to judge and to take action on that judgment... but we must be sure to judge righteously, otherwise....
It can sound morally relativistic, mostly because I think I am weak in saying what I mean. I agree, there are universal principles. But principles are sort of "talk," and humans put the principles to work. And it seems to me, that we often want to impose how we live a certain principle on others, because we think they should see things the same way we do. In the case of Mitt Romney, some feel like he is no friend of the constitution, while others may feel like he's the Constitution's last hope. I don't think either group contains morons, and the other group is comprised of wise men. There will always be differences on how people apply principles.

If we make the "straight and narrow" too narrow, no one is going back to heaven, and I think God's plan probably isn't all it's cut out to be. I tend to believe that God will do everything in His power to save as many as possible.

When I say "straight and narrow" being too narrow, I mean....let's see - principle - Family Home Evening. What if you missed it last week? What if you do it on Sunday? How long should it be? Two hours? Three hours? Fifteen minutes?

Principle - fast offerings should be generous. What is generous? $10? $100? 1000?

Principle - reading scriptures daily recommended. At what time? How long? How many chapters? Should I pray before I read? After? Both?

I could go on forever, but I hope you understand what I'm getting at. Principles are universal, but due to the diversity of people and circumstances, there is usually not one single way to apply principles. As I say, if there is, I don't think there's much hope for us.

Just for the record, I did some digging to see what Mitt thought about the Constitution, and I had real difficulty finding anything substantial. So you guys might be right, he might not be too big on defending it. At the same time, I can say with little doubt that I'm sure he's read the thing, and he knows it exists. But any of us can read things and think they're garbage, so that doesn't mean much.

buffalo_girl
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7017

Re: Mitt Romney

Post by buffalo_girl »

At the same time, I can say with little doubt that I'm sure he's read the thing, and he knows it exists.
Reading 'the thing' and knowing 'it exists' isn't quite good enough in my judgment. I hope not in God's either.

When an elected representative 'solemnly' swears to 'preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic' he needs to know exactly what it is he is swearing to protect.
Article VI.3
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

The text of the Constitutional Oath is not written in the Constitution, but the current oath was enacted by Congress in 1862. "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
Seems like a Covenant to me.

User avatar
masterdmjg
captain of 100
Posts: 309
Location: AZ
Contact:

Re: Mitt Romney

Post by masterdmjg »

buffalo_girl wrote:
At the same time, I can say with little doubt that I'm sure he's read the thing, and he knows it exists.
Reading 'the thing' and knowing 'it exists' isn't quite good enough in my judgment. I hope not in God's either.
No doubt, that's correct. I was only saying it because you said he probably didn't know it exists. I don't think having read it and knowing it exists is adequate either, as I already stated.
masterdmjg wrote:But any of us can read things and think they're garbage, so that doesn't mean much.

User avatar
Bircher
captain of 100
Posts: 909
Location: Utah

Re: Mitt Romney

Post by Bircher »

masterdmjg wrote: It can sound morally relativistic, mostly because I think I am weak in saying what I mean. I agree, there are universal principles. But principles are sort of "talk," and humans put the principles to work. And it seems to me, that we often want to impose how we live a certain principle on others, because we think they should see things the same way we do. In the case of Mitt Romney, some feel like he is no friend of the constitution, while others may feel like he's the Constitution's last hope. I don't think either group contains morons, and the other group is comprised of wise men. There will always be differences on how people apply principles.

If we make the "straight and narrow" too narrow, no one is going back to heaven, and I think God's plan probably isn't all it's cut out to be. I tend to believe that God will do everything in His power to save as many as possible.

When I say "straight and narrow" being too narrow, I mean....let's see - principle - Family Home Evening. What if you missed it last week? What if you do it on Sunday? How long should it be? Two hours? Three hours? Fifteen minutes?

Principle - fast offerings should be generous. What is generous? $10? $100? 1000?

Principle - reading scriptures daily recommended. At what time? How long? How many chapters? Should I pray before I read? After? Both?
I agree, there are personal ways to apply principles, and we must judge especially for ourselves how to apply them in our own lives. We cannot be commanded in all things, we must make the application for ourselves.

However, I think getting back to what appeared to be your original point, was in application especially to elected officials.

If we need to expose hidden things of darkness, not allow a conspiracy to get above us, and defend the Constitution, and we are held accountable for our acts in relation to those things, then we must judge, and Moroni tells us how... doesn't he?

If I am right in the above contentions, then is it not vital to find out who these people are in govt and warn our neighbor as well? How do you do the above without making judgment calls on those elected or seek elected office? Or those that are part of the secret combination's of the last days?

Should we make wild accusations about these people, and say so and so is a LDG without evidence? Clearly not. It bugged me to no end when folks said Mitt was CFR, when he is not. I am not fan of Mitt, his record is pro gay, anti gun, anti family, pro fascism, etc... but he is NOT a member of the CFR.

Did I miss your point, am I making sense?

User avatar
masterdmjg
captain of 100
Posts: 309
Location: AZ
Contact:

Re: Mitt Romney

Post by masterdmjg »

Bircher wrote:
masterdmjg wrote: It can sound morally relativistic, mostly because I think I am weak in saying what I mean. I agree, there are universal principles. But principles are sort of "talk," and humans put the principles to work. And it seems to me, that we often want to impose how we live a certain principle on others, because we think they should see things the same way we do. In the case of Mitt Romney, some feel like he is no friend of the constitution, while others may feel like he's the Constitution's last hope. I don't think either group contains morons, and the other group is comprised of wise men. There will always be differences on how people apply principles.

If we make the "straight and narrow" too narrow, no one is going back to heaven, and I think God's plan probably isn't all it's cut out to be. I tend to believe that God will do everything in His power to save as many as possible.

When I say "straight and narrow" being too narrow, I mean....let's see - principle - Family Home Evening. What if you missed it last week? What if you do it on Sunday? How long should it be? Two hours? Three hours? Fifteen minutes?

Principle - fast offerings should be generous. What is generous? $10? $100? 1000?

Principle - reading scriptures daily recommended. At what time? How long? How many chapters? Should I pray before I read? After? Both?
I agree, there are personal ways to apply principles, and we must judge especially for ourselves how to apply them in our own lives. We cannot be commanded in all things, we must make the application for ourselves.

However, I think getting back to what appeared to be your original point, was in application especially to elected officials.

If we need to expose hidden things of darkness, not allow a conspiracy to get above us, and defend the Constitution, and we are held accountable for our acts in relation to those things, then we must judge, and Moroni tells us how... doesn't he?

If I am right in the above contentions, then is it not vital to find out who these people are in govt and warn our neighbor as well? How do you do the above without making judgment calls on those elected or seek elected office? Or those that are part of the secret combination's of the last days?

Should we make wild accusations about these people, and say so and so is a LDG without evidence? Clearly not. It bugged me to no end when folks said Mitt was CFR, when he is not. I am not fan of Mitt, his record is pro gay, anti gun, anti family, pro fascism, etc... but he is NOT a member of the CFR.

Did I miss your point, am I making sense?
Oh, I see what you're saying. I think we certainly have to judge. I think what I'm trying to get at is, you have to be willing to look at both sides of the individual. If you can find someone that you agree with all the time, that's going to be rare. I think I had many concerns about Mitt's "flip flops" on issues. We often times assume it is political opportunism, and maybe it is. But people can change their minds - if they never did, no one would ever learn from their mistakes. But my bigger concern was the CFR accusation, and those types of things concern me, because what happens more often than not, I think, is we label a person this or that, and then we look for things that confirm that judgment. I just think that can be an unfair way to judge things all the time, especially if the alleged charge is not even accurate.

So maybe instead of saying to someone, "Mitt Romney works with secret combinations," it might be fairer to say, "this is what I dislike, or what worries me in particular, and this is what I like about him," and people can get a better idea, and then make their own judgment. I guess I may be too idealistic, but it is hard for me to believe most of these politicians are pure evil period. But they sure do a lot of things that really bug me. I personally feel there's more powers behind the politician that dictate what he/she does. The people who pull the strings behind the scenes are the ones I'd like to get to, because I think they are more responsible for the demise of the country. I think the politician is just the puppet a lot of the time.

User avatar
Bircher
captain of 100
Posts: 909
Location: Utah

Re: Mitt Romney

Post by Bircher »

I can dig that. When trying to help others understand, especially those that may not have the same background on LDG's, we should be working on areas of agreement first, then help them in a way that wont turn them off to get them to a greater understanding of what we have learned on the issues and individuals.

User avatar
ldsff
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1924

Re: Mitt Romney

Post by ldsff »

Just remember Satan in the temple video...he was so nice to pick the fruit for Adam and Eve.

buffalo_girl
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7017

Re: Mitt Romney

Post by buffalo_girl »

The people who pull the strings behind the scenes are the ones I'd like to get to, because I think they are more responsible for the demise of the country. I think the politician is just the puppet a lot of the time.
How does 'the politician' get to be 'the puppet'?

The ONLY way I know is to be beholden to the strong puller. If politicians are honest in their service as our representatives and in their personal lives the 'devil' can have no power over them.

People who make it to the finals in the run for Presidency are subject to either blackmail, bribery, or flattery - probably all three. The 'string pullers' don't start pulling the strings once a politician attains a position of prominence. The 'string pulling' is a long process of 'testing' the puppet, conditioning the puppet, corrupting the puppet until the 'string puller' has no doubt as to the behavior of that piece of wood at the end of his strings.

I will say this in Mitt Romney's behalf. I don't think he is an evil man or a controlled puppet. I do think he is a naive man who has managed to stand aloof from the real evil in high places by 'virtue' of his extraordinary wealth and by obedience to basic covenants. Being naive is ok, but it also means you don't really know how the world works or how corrupt it is. You might even imagine there is a place for you in it.

I doubt he will be allowed to enter the realm unless there is a way to use him that isn't obvious to us yet.

I do fault him for not working to understand the principles of freedom upon which this nation is founded and for not defending them. I do fault him for being altogether fuzzy in bearing witness of the reality of God's voice in guiding - not only the Church - but in the Lord's active involvement in every aspect of our time and in our personal lives.
Matthew 10:16
16 ¶ Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.

User avatar
masterdmjg
captain of 100
Posts: 309
Location: AZ
Contact:

Re: Mitt Romney

Post by masterdmjg »

buffalo_girl wrote:
I do fault him for not working to understand the principles of freedom upon which this nation is founded and for not defending them. I do fault him for being altogether fuzzy in bearing witness of the reality of God's voice in guiding - not only the Church - but in the Lord's active involvement in every aspect of our time and in our personal lives.
Matthew 10:16
16 ¶ Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.
You can fault him, but just because he doesn't understand the principles the way you do, doesn't mean he has never worked to understand them. You may have more information than I do, but the knowledge I do have in connection with my disagreements with him, I attribute to a difference in political views, not that I know more than he does. I'm certain I don't.

As for his fuzziness in "bearing witness," I really think is simply explained by - there is no religious test for president, and a presidential campaign is not a time for bearing testimony and teaching about beliefs of the Church. I think he may have gotten tired of getting those questions, because there was no need for them to be asked. If people are that interested in the beliefs of the Church, there are thousands of ways to go about getting information. Maybe that's why he didn't just come right out and say, "Yes, I believe I am a member of the only true Church on the earth, and the rest of the churches comprise the church of the devil," I don't know.

buffalo_girl
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7017

Re: Mitt Romney

Post by buffalo_girl »

Maybe that's why he didn't just come right out and say, "Yes, I believe I am a member of the only true Church on the earth, and the rest of the churches comprise the church of the devil,"
I'm not sure we will come to terms on our differences in perspective. I would have thought such a testimony as inappropriate as what he actually did say.

BackBlast
captain of 100
Posts: 570

Re: Mitt Romney

Post by BackBlast »

Mark wrote:
Chasing your desired ends and seeking evidence of your own preconceived conclusions is the work and path the devil promotes. Seeking truth, light, and knowledge and then acting on it is the correct path.
Don't you think that those who believe this will spend more of their efforts into finding tidbits that back this assertion than they will in trying to find holes that discredit that same assertion? Once again I ask who here doesn't have pre-conceived notions that have led them to certain conclusions? I'd like to meet him or her. They are a rare bird indeed.
You don't seem to understand an important point.

Seek truth and you shall find it. Regardless of your initial state, you can't help but progress and find truth. The truth exists and is available to all genuine seekers. It's your motive, genuineness, and determination to find actual truth that will determine how much truth you discover, not your initial state.

Brandon

BackBlast
captain of 100
Posts: 570

Re: Mitt Romney

Post by BackBlast »

masterdmjg wrote:
BackBlast wrote:
masterdmjg wrote:As with Mitt Romney, so with everything else. As I've watched and contemplated all of these political rumblings over the past year and a half, as well as other fundamental questions, one of the only things I've come to feel completely certain of is you can choose what to believe, and you can find any amount of evidence to back it up. If you want to believe Mitt Romney is a socialist, you can find information supporting it. If you believe he would be a good president, you can find information supporting that opinion, too.
...
There, I've taken my noncommittal stance again. If you want to believe Mitt is an evil machine-serving conspirator, you can go out and find evidence to back up those claims. If you think he's a good guy, you can find proof of that, too. In many things, it would appear truth is mostly in the eye of the beholder.
Truer words were never spoken..
I disagree.

I don't buy this logic that essentially all angles are equally valid and evidences equally weighted behind them. People can and will believe what they want, that's the nature of agency, but there is one set of truth, it doesn't exist in multiple conflicting states simultaneously. I understand you are essentially speaking up for agency and explaining what people effectively do, but you give no weight to the value of the real truth of the matter. The ability to discern the correct state with the limited available information is a skill and spiritual gift that is to be sought after, as it grants wisdom, direction, and leads you on correct paths and it's development stems from the internal desire to REALLY KNOW the real truth. Deception is a tool of the devil to blind and enslave, and those that allow themselves to be deceived, end up on this path of error and it's consequences.

Chasing your desired ends and seeking evidence of your own preconceived conclusions is the work and path the devil promotes. Seeking truth, light, and knowledge and then acting on it is the correct path.

Brandon
I'm afraid if you're saying there is always one undeniable, universal, truth that we have to follow, you will be hard pressed to back it up. The commandment is: thou shalt not kill. The fact is, God justifies killing (take Nephi with Laban) sometimes, and there is no one fundamental "truth" that will always lead you to know when it's "o.k." and when it's not. If you were to take Nephi and judge him outside of the knowledge that God told him to kill Laban, you would assume he is a murderer and possibly an evil guy.
You misunderstand me. There are eternal truths, and there is a truthful state, which is to say the way things are. There is a color of keyboard I am typing on, it is singular and regardless of what you or anyone else believes, will remain so. Points of view one way or another don't change what IS, or the value of knowing what IS in important areas of life. I hope that helps drive the point at hand a bit better... One true state exists, how much we know of it or how much is important is a separate debate. Eternal principles and law defines how we should act in relation to that state. At times there is a multitude of forces on any one person or event, but there are usually a few key elements that tend to drive the others, and this identification through the limited information at hand is a heavenly gift of discernment and is very desirable. You can know if you really want to, knock and it shall be opened unto you...

Your example seems to say "We do not understand the intricacies and all nuances of the law, and therefor cannot comprehend Truth". I would contend that this is the goal, to comprehend eternal Truth and act on it, which also generally requires an understanding of the current state or context of your decisions. However short we fall from it.

To explain your example, perhaps a better wording of the commandment is "thou shalt not murder", quick and dirty web definition: Murder is the unlawful killing of a human person with malice aforethought. In the example of Nephi, he returned to Jerusalem and attempted a lawful transaction with Laban - to purchase the plates by barter. Laban lied: called Nephi & company robbers, and then performed the action of a robber himself - which is to steal by threat of force - and this is also attempted murder since it was unjustified. Under the system of law then in force, Laban's life was forfeit as the penalty for his crimes was death. The Lord, through Nephi, worked a lawful punishment of Laban in taking his life. How much of this Nephi understood at the time, I don't know. It is likely that if Nephi obtained the plates in that circumstance by some other means, Laban would have had the motive to put in resources to find Lehi and his family. But the Lord knows his stuff, that's why he is the Lord and we trust his understanding of law and truth. Ultimately a better understanding of the events brings the correct judgment of the case, which I believe supports what I am saying.
So to be able to judge a person by your own estimation of "truth" when that person comes from completely separate circumstances and experiences, is to expect something that is very difficult.
I'm not out to perform final judgment on anyone, but in reasoning together, seekers of truth can find more truth! Who cares that we have different points of view, backgrounds, or conclusions?
And what usually happens, is people take their experience and their opinions, and they make a judgment, in this case, Mitt Romney is a bad guy/good guy. Depending on which stand one wants to take, they then will look for evidence, facts, or "truth" that supports their idea of who Romney is.
If all they do is look for evidence, they're just building a case to justify their belief. This is not seeking truth, it's case building to justify a point of view.
An easy way to see it is when people make sweeping proclamations like, "he's naive," "he's a socialist," "he's a globalist," "a CFR-stooge" (which I have still never been able to confirm but people will tell me every day of the week that it is a fact, and never show me where their gleaning that "truth" from), etc.
Well, there's evidence in that vein. I don't think he is in the CFR's pocket, and I don't think they think that either. But he did surround himself with CFR types during his run. He adopted their platform. He may have adopted this purposely to make himself more appealing, I don't know. I like the glimmer of hope that I see from him, but unfortunately as only a glimmer I can't go that route. I'm looking for the solid rock foundation and not the guy who may be undercover dressed as the enemy.
All I'm saying is, if you want to find the bad, the evil, in someone, it won't be hard to do. We all are human, we all sin continuously. If you want to find the good in a person, you can do that, too. In general, I would say most people do not lie on either side of a good/evil fence.
I'm bringing up all kinds of topics now... But yes, yes they do lie on either side of the fence, there are no fence sitters. The only real prerequisite is that you understand the commandment. Good side: pay full tithing, Bad side: don't pay full tithing. It's that simple.

That's not to say that anyone on either side does not have the other side striving to turn them. This is, after all, a war. And some people are fairly clear servants of one side or the other with the majority not falling under such a clear distinction. Usually actions or ideas do have a clear origin, and one of discernment's principle intents is to allow you to ferret out that origin so you can make correct decisions.
There is a whole spectrum, and if you think you really know a person well enough, that you've only seen in clips on YouTube, or CNN, or in the newspaper, or in a biography, enough to judge where they lie in relation to the "fence," most of the time you won't be able to do that. That's why I reserve that judgment for God, who is the only one who has enough information to determine such a matter.
Final judgment is, indeed, for God. But it's perfectly within reason, and within our DUTY to discuss and ferret out the truth of a public figure's motive and potential performance in the US presidency. Especially since he shows every indication of a follow up attempt. I'm not trying to send him to Heaven or Hell. Not all "judgments" are wrong.
I personally feel like we expect our presidential and congressional candidates to be "superhuman." We trumpet their failings, because we hold them up to a higher standard than we hold "regular" people.
Since we have recent presidents who essentially hold themselves above the law, I have no qualms with requiring superhuman fortitude to resist evil. George Washington was such, and we could certainly use another one of those at this late hour. I think our Presidents should be among the very best the US has to offer, why shouldn't they be? This individual also get control of one of the most powerful destructive forces in the world, the US nuclear arsenal. I see every reason in the world to insure we have the best of the best of the best the US has to offer.

I also hold regular people up to a high standard too, I don't condone sin - or at least I try not to. You can bet I would never higher McCain or Obama to be my attorney, doctor, accountant, or any other position of trust in my life based on my understanding of their character.

User avatar
masterdmjg
captain of 100
Posts: 309
Location: AZ
Contact:

Re: Mitt Romney

Post by masterdmjg »

Well, that was a lot to digest. You make a lot of good points, and we could debate point after point for the rest of our lives, possibly.

Let me just say what I'm trying to say in very few words. Despite what you may or may not think of Mitt Romney, I know many, many, good people who were planning to support him for president. Supporting him is not evil.

Post Reply