FL Religious Group: A vote for Rommney is a vote for satan

[1069]

Personally, I dislike Romney on many different levels, but he's probably got more of a chance than anyone else.

Polls do not support this.
Nobody can win the GOP vote without the fundamentalist Christians, and they by in large have stated that they will not and cannot vote for a Mormon under any circumstances.

Only the extremes of the religious spectrum wouldn't vote for a Mormon, the same people who wouldn't vote for Catholics or Muslims.

The "extremes" comprise a very sizable percentage of GOP voters, however.
Has a Muslim ever won?
Has a Catholic? (Only once so far, and JFK was a Democrat).

However, we've never had a female or a minority as a serious contender for the presidency before either, so I guess it's a new world, with new rules.
We're pretty much navigating uncharted territory here; it's hard to say what will happen.

 

[disneydude]

Nobody can win the GOP vote without the fundamentalist Christians, and they by in large have stated that they will not and cannot vote for a Mormon under any circumstances.

While it is true that a large majority of Fundamentalists won't vote for Romney because he is not "Christian"-enough for them, I disagree that nobdoy can win the GOP vote with them.
The right-wing used to have a huge influence over the GOP, but this election is going to be about Republicans attempting to take back their party from the radical right. This is why McCain's pandering to them has hurt him politically.
Gingrich will enter the race in Aug/Sept. When he does, the radical right will have the candidate that they have been lacking and crying for. However, Gingrich is not going to get much (if any) of the moderate vote.
So the GOP nomination is going to come down to a political civil war for the heart of the Republican party. Personally, I would love to see Gingrich pull it off, because I think he would get slaughtered in the general election, but I don't believe the radical right has as much power as they used to, so I see the moderate side of the Republican party going with either Giuliani or Romney. Personally, I think Giuliani will peak and then decline rapidly and Romney will be poised to fight the right-wing for the nomination. The polls actually do support this. Despite Romney not having high numbers right now, what the polls have consistently shown is that when Romney gets his message out, his support increases more than Giuliani and McCain....he has low "negatives" and high "unknowns". He has a lot of money and is a smart politician.....so I wouldn't be so quick to count Romney out just yet.

 

[Cold Highway]

While it is true that a large majority of Fundamentalists won't vote for Romney because he is not "Christian"-enough for them, I disagree that nobdoy can win the GOP vote with them.
The right-wing used to have a huge influence over the GOP, but this election is going to be about Republicans attempting to take back their party from the radical right. This is why McCain's pandering to them has hurt him politically.
Gingrich will enter the race in Aug/Sept. When he does, the radical right will have the candidate that they have been lacking and crying for. However, Gingrich is not going to get much (if any) of the moderate vote.
So the GOP nomination is going to come down to a political civil war for the heart of the Republican party. Personally, I would love to see Gingrich pull it off, because I think he would get slaughtered in the general election, but I don't believe the radical right has as much power as they used to, so I see the moderate side of the Republican party going with either Giuliani or Romney. Personally, I think Giuliani will peak and then decline rapidly and Romney will be poised to fight the right-wing for the nomination. The polls actually do support this. Despite Romney not having high numbers right now, what the polls have consistently shown is that when Romney gets his message out, his support increases more than Giuliani and McCain....he has low "negatives" and high "unknowns". He has a lot of money and is a smart politician.....so I wouldn't be so quick to count Romney out just yet.

If Thompson gets into the race the radical right will be energized because it appears the evangelical voting bloc is in a confused state right now but are slowly pushing Thompson to run.

 

[disneydude]

If Thompson gets into the race the radical right will be energized because it appears the evangelical voting bloc is in a confused state right now but are slowly pushing Thompson to run.

True..True...but that support will fade once they realize that Thompson won't win and Gingrich (the man they really want) enters the race in Aug/Sept.

 

[hypgnostic]

Now I dont like Rommney but I dont think his religion should matter for his qualifications for president.

http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=9163&news_iv_ctrl=0&abbr=pr

http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=9163&news_iv_ctrl=0&abbr=pr

I don't think it does matter. His bigoted christian beliefs, on the other hand, DO disqualify him as far as I am concerned.

 

[Iriemon]

Maybe this will demonstrate the full story. The Soviet Union was a closed society. The government controlled all the media and the messages. Yet what fueled the people's desire for freedom? Our music and our consumer goods. The Beatles. Levi jeans. Coke. Pepsi. McDonalds. The people wanted that. And as much as Reagan had to do with the end of Communism, do not discount the effect that western culture had on corroding the resolve of the people in charge.

And as bad as things were in the Soviet days, and from most accounts they were pretty bad, since the new system of government came about there are some Russians who believe that despite the hardships and the government control and censorship of the past, the old order was better than what 'modernization' has brought them.

And what brought this about?

Western Culture and Progressive Values. Progressive Ideas and Policies.

This is from a transcript of the flawed but still very informative documentary, "The Power of Nightmares."

IRVING KRISTOL: If you had asked any liberal in 1960, we are going to pass these laws, these laws, these laws, and these laws, mentioning all the laws that in fact were passed in the 1960s and ‘70s, would you say crime will go up, drug addiction will go up, illegitimacy will go up, or will they get down? Obviously, everyone would have said, they will get down. And everyone would have been wrong. Now, that’s not something that the liberals have been able to face up to. They’ve had their reforms, and they have led to consequences that they did not expect and they don’t know what to do about.

Sad but true.

The rest of the story is, poverty was halved sortly after the 60s great socieity legislations was passed. Crime went up during the Reagan years and went down sharply during the Clinton administration.

Not every law passed in the 60s worked perfectly, no doubt. But liberal policies (labor laws, social security and social support nets, clean air and water laws, work place safey, race age and sex discrimination law, etc etc) have made the nation a much better place.

 

[Cold Highway]

Since the 1960's we have introduced liberal policies which have hurt America yet we have reduced the legal and moral framework necessary to keep the society on an even keel.

You make it sound that nobody in this country can think for themselves.

With all the progressive values and liberal ideas being promoted so enthusiastically what prevents the dangers of excess anymore?

In addition the religious right has made it clear it doesnt like the progress that society tries to make. They want to make stem cell research illegal, they dont consider homosexuals even human even though society for the most part is starting to be more acceptable to them, they were against the Civil Rights (I know that doesnt matter to you since you wish it was still 1950) movement Falwell had plenty of criticism for Dr. King. Plus if it wasnt for liberal ideas you would be a legal slave to your job (labor laws), you kid could be forced to learn a religion you dont agree with (church state separation), among others.

In sort a liberal is someone who wish to move society forward and a conservative someon who wish to keep society traditional. Both political ideals have benefited society not just one.

 

[Zyphlin]

Okay, now I don't agree with these people at all..and I actually like Romney.

But please, PLEASE, show me where in the constitution it states that someone should not, or should, vote on someone based on their religion? Someone show me where that's unconstitutional? Cause from all my readings of it, I've never seen it.

Who the hell are you people to decide or state what is a legitimate reason to vote for someone or not? Do I think these people are absolutely crazy to not vote for him because he's "satan"? Sure. I also think that its rather ignorant to base a huge part of you're voting on a senator on if they think Abortion should be legal or not because its not very likely become a nationally legislative issue. I also think its stupid to vote for someone simply because of their party affiliation without knowing for sure any of their stances. Just like I think its stupid to vote for the one that SOUNDS more intelligent even if they may not be more qualified.

But just because I think its stupid that people vote, or don't vote, due to certain issues doesn't make it WRONG that they do.

And I think most of you'd agree, cause I would imagine many of you going on about it would not vote for an extremely religion, Christian fundamentalist, due to that fact. So why is it constitutionally wrong for them not to vote for Romney because he's mormon?

Not voting for him because of his religion does not set a state religion, it does not cause the government to infringe upon the right of a religion, so please....someone...show me where this is some kind of assault on the constitution?

 

[UtahBill]

I don't think it does matter. His bigoted christian beliefs, on the other hand, DO disqualify him as far as I am concerned.

Elaborate, please. What about him or is beliefs is bigoted?

 

[bhkad]

The rest of the story is, poverty was halved sortly after the 60s great socieity legislations was passed. Crime went up during the Reagan years and went down sharply during the Clinton administration.

Not every law passed in the 60s worked perfectly, no doubt. But liberal policies (labor laws, social security and social support nets, clean air and water laws, work place safey, race age and sex discrimination law, etc etc) have made the nation a much better place.

Many (most???) of this country's nagging and most serious problems are due to the progressive excesses of the 60's.

Social Security has gotten to the point where it can no longer sustain itself thanks to the Damnocrats using it as a sugar teat to entice voters.

Welfare induced the break up of the African American family and marginalized black men. This led to generations of welfare families. The view of government as the "Big Daddy" (which helps explain part of Hillary's appeal and also partially explains why she is so vilified) led to young black males having no realistic strong positive male role models and so young males became less likely to do well in school and more likely to become involved in gangs, crime and drugs and that led to their becoming incarcerated and that increased taxes to support policing and investigating and prosecuting and imprisoning and paroling them. And after they got out of jail or prison they brought with them a certain lifestyle and fashions and ethos which manifests in mainstream culture as Rap & Hip Hop and Thug Life. And that means the glamorizing of gangs, drugs, non-violent crime, sexual promiscuity, dropping out of school, a deterioration of societal values and making it popular to NOT SNITCH...in essence segregating an entire segment of the population from law and the protections of the law.

And don't get me started with the legalized killing of babies thanks to the DemoRATS.

Then there was the creation of the world's largest Jihadist nation, Iran, which came about thanks to you-know-who! (For anyone who needs a clue it was Democratic Pres. Jimmy Carter.) A country we only kept in check by supporting a secular despot to rule Iraq, Saddam Hussein.

Yeah. Great. Yoo hoo! Democrats!

:blowup:

The icon says it all. They give voters what SEEMS like candy at the time. But when we swallow it it blows us up.

And the Democrats just keep on with their short sighted pandering and policies and the newest generation will always fall for it until they recognize that it's US who is left to pay the price for their ineptitude.

And let's not have anyone try and change the subject by saying, 'well, the GOP has done just as bad!'

No, it hasn't. Show us the long lasting societal problems that came about as a result of GOP policies.

 

[bhkad]

You make it sound that nobody in this country can think for themselves.

Let's face it, the pot smoking, Godless, morally bankrupt, pleasure-seeking, responsibility-avoiding segment of society primarily votes for whoever will ease their perceived 'pain', give them what they want, ask little in return, sweep problems under the rug and tear down any and all established societal
boundaries for the sake of making people feeeeel good in the now at the expense of the later.

So, yes, those people can think, but their thinkin is 'stinkin thinkin.'

In addition the religious right has made it clear it doesnt like the progress that society tries to make. They want to make stem cell research illegal, WRONG.

they dont consider homosexuals even human WRONG.

even though society for the most part is starting to be more acceptable to them, they were against the Civil Rights (I know that doesnt matter to you since you wish it was still 1950) movement Falwell had plenty of criticism for Dr. King. WRONG.

Plus if it wasnt for liberal ideas you would be a legal slave to your job (labor laws), you kid could be forced to learn a religion you dont agree with (church state separation), among others. WRONG.

In sort a liberal is someone who wish to move society forward and a conservative someon who wish to keep society traditional. Both political ideals have benefited society not just one.

THIS PART IS TRUE.


The Bush Admin. said no tax money should be used for stem cell research with embryo cells, IIRC.

Every responsible Republican is compassionate toward Gays. We don't use Gayness as a weapon to bludgeon our political opponents with. Such as Edwards did with Cheney's daughter in 2004.

I'm black, so I guess you are wrong again. As usual.

You make life in America before the atheists revolution in the 1960's seem like a Talibanic society, which it was not. There was no one forcing children to learn religions they didn't believe in.

But Carter DID get Egypt and Israel to sign a peace treaty. That was a great thing.

 

[Cold Highway]

Every responsible Republican is compassionate toward Gays.

ROFL lets go back to the 04 election and show how the compassionate they were. The two issues were Iraq and prevent gays from marrying and prevent the "destruction of the American family" and other bullshit

We don't use Gayness as a weapon to bludgeon our political opponents with. Such as Edwards did with Cheney's daughter in 2004.

Edwards used it because Cheney was being a hypocrite but as usual you forget that. After his daughter admited she was a lesbian Cheney became silent on the issue. You should go back even further on how Rove said how John McCain has an illegit black child to discredit him during the 2000 primary.

I guess you are wrong again. As usual.

No your a partisan hack and cant admit your wrong. Although Ill give you credit when that other redneck Rick was here he made you and the rest of the 5 rednecks seem semi-intelligent

You make life in America before the atheists revolution in the 1960's seem like a Talibanic society, which it was not. There was no one forcing children to learn religions they didn't believe in.

I wasnt around during the 60s I was born in the 80s. The Religious Rights movement wasnt as strong as it is now. They didnt have the huge influence on the Republicans as they do now, so since they became the power base they can push their candidates that fit their dominion agenda without too much criticism from the rest of the Republican party.

But Carter DID get Egypt and Israel to sign a peace treaty. That was a great thing.

This will probably be the only non-partisan ill ever hear out of you

 

[bhkad]

ROFL lets go back to the 04 election and show how the compassionate they were. The two issues were Iraq and prevent gays from marrying and prevent the "destruction of the American family" and other bullshit

Edwards used it because Cheney was being a hypocrite but as usual you forget that. After his daughter admited she was a lesbian Cheney became silent on the issue. You should go back even further on how Rove said how John McCain has an illegit black child to discredit him during the 2000 primary.

No your a partisan hack and cant admit your wrong. Although Ill give you credit when that other redneck Rick was here he made you and the rest of the 5 rednecks seem semi-intelligent

I wasnt around during the 60s I was born in the 80s. The Religious Rights movement wasnt as strong as it is now. They didnt have the huge influence on the Republicans as they do now, so since they became the power base they can push their candidates that fit their dominion agenda without too much criticism from the rest of the Republican party.

This will probably be the only non-partisan ill ever hear out of you

Preventing the erosion of the building block of society is not a denial of compassion toward Gays, it is protecting this society. And, frankly, if liberals showed a similar respect for what it takes to keep the 'car running' we might be less antsy about giving you guys the keys. But you think it's all about US. That's why I think of you all as I do women. Silly, foolish, shortsighted, emotional, creative, fun, funny, impulsive, sometimes talented and vain-glorious women...who won't check the oil level in the car.

Cheney's views on Gay rights is completely responsible and compassionate and still allowed for the law to change when and if research showed that society will not suffer from Gay marriage and widespread Gay parenting over all kinds of circumstances and many generations. Gay rights is not to be doled out as a feeeeel good remedy. We owe the people in the year 3007 the duty of not making silly emotion based decisions because Gay people, like straights, also feel the parental urge.

Sorry, that's just not enough. We should err on the side of what we KNOW to be in the best interests of Society and children. As much as the various organizations might say that Gay marriage and parenting is fine, we should note that all the organizations also said that Thalidomide was safe in treating morning sickness. Until grotesque babies appeared. Well, what if the grotesque babies didn't show up for five generations? That's what subtle and fundamental changes in the institution of marriage and parenting can produce. We JUST DON'T YET KNOW!

What you fail to grasp is that YOU are the aberration. Until the 1980's America was nicely religious and each person did whatever they wanted in terms of their religion and we were all tolerant and respectful and there was no problem. But now that we have your atheistic BS philosophy threatening the very fiber of American society Christians who just want the same kind of harmony and true direction that existed pre-1980 to once again exist in America are becoming more vocal and more active.

You guys say that we should pull out from Iraq to get the enemy to stop their dominion plan. Well, Christians have only recently become strident and looking to become forceful. Maybe you guys should withdraw from being so antagonistic toward the Right wing agenda and maybe we'll become peaceful again.

I'm occasionally non-partisan. I occasionally say complimentary things about Islam and Muslims. You just miss those occasions.

 

[black wolf]

...

You make life in America before the atheists revolution in the 1960's seem like a Talibanic society, which it was not. There was no one forcing children to learn religions they didn't believe in.

...

There is no need to force religion on children. Children are strongly inclined to believe what parents and other authorities tell them. They don't know that critical questioning and disagreement are an option. Religious indoctrinators know this fact very well, and have abused it for millenia. Teaching the child to become the person you want it to be is much easier than pulling it off with adults.

 

[Cold Highway]

You guys say that we should pull out from Iraq to get the enemy to stop their dominion plan. Well, Christians have only recently become strident and looking to become forceful. Maybe you guys should withdraw from being so antagonistic toward the Right wing agenda and maybe we'll become peaceful again.

First of all if you ever bothered to look up my stances on Iraq I have never said we should pull out. Pulling out is a mistake but nice try. Second your talking to a former Catholic who said **** the establishment. Pope Benedicit said if your pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-death penalty among other things you can no longer call yourself a Catholic. If you must know I call my self a theist whenever Im asked about religion. I still recognize that their is a God out there but nice try though.

 

[buttonpsi]

But now that we have your atheistic BS philosophy threatening the very fiber of American society Christians who just want the same kind of harmony and true direction that existed pre-1980 to once again exist in America are becoming more vocal and more active.

Atheistic Philosophy?

phi·los·o·phy (fĭ-lŏs'ə-fē)
1. Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.
2. Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.
3. A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the philosophy of Hume.
4. The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.

Damn rational people...shame on you for questioning.
:rofl