Romney Speech

I am really sorry to burst your bubble here.

Of the parties mentioned in your nice little article

("The new party was an umbrella that took in members of the rapidly disintegrating Whig Party, abolitionists, Free-Soilers and anti-slavery Democrats.")

Only one, making up a minor faction of the party, was clearly anti-slavery. Abolitionists. Only they stood for the policy of Immediatism to end the institution. Why didn't the others? Personal interest, pretty much. Why did Douglas support the Kansas-Nebraska act and popular sovereignty? Because he could make a butt-ton off of a railroad. Did he care about state's rights (or HUMAN rights?)? Well, it certainly made him look good to SAY he did. Why weren't the Republicans for Immediatism? Well...Abolitionists carried about 3% of the popular vote in prior elections. It is as it always has been...you do what gets you elected (See Mitt Romney speech).

By the way, I don't even know why I waste breathe on someone debating 'Slavory' with me.

"The delegates got right down to business the first day by adopting a platform. The key plank was firm opposition to the extension of slavery. "It is the duty of Congress to prohibit in the territories those twin relics of barbarism, polygamy and slavery." The polygamy reference was aimed at the Mormon settlement in Utah territory."

That is a quote from the article that I posted. On the First Day of the 1856 convention a plank against slavery and polygamy was passed.

Yes there is more to the story I never said that there wasn't but What I stated is still accurate.

What you stated what that the Republican forum called for the END of slavery. This is not accurate. [quote]another LDS guy wrote:

"The delegates got right down to business the first day by adopting a platform. The key plank was firm opposition to the extension of slavery."

The EXTENSION of slavery is far different from the END of slavery. This means that nearly half the states could continue the institution. Slaveholding states did not fear Republicans, save the Deep South, who were solely bent on saving their backwards institution. But, other parties beside the Repulicans were more vehement towards slavery. That is why there were TWO phases to secession. The Upper South was entrenched with the institution, but not as much as Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina, Florida, and others. The Civil War was far more about the prevention of disunion than about the issue of slavery, although the results of the war resulted in its demise. One thing you must also remember, as is typical of all history, is that the entire field is subjective. Just because you read Herodatus you do not know everything about the Greeks. In order to obtain the most accurate knowledge in any field of history, you must read/listen to every historian's INTERPRETATION of the time period, and even then you cannot be certain of the logic/reasoning behind events.

[quote]some Romney interesting history

The Republican party was formed to combat the twin evils of Slavory and polygamy. When it was formed the Mormons were the enemy and Blacks were the beneficiaries.

Now most "African -Americans are democrats and see republicans as the enemy and most Mormons are Republican faithful.

Just a quick history lesson for your gee whiz file[quote]

This was the first Stmention of this point in the thread. Could you please show me where is say anything about the "END" of Slavery?

What was said was that The republican party was anti slavery and anti-polygamy. this was proven by showing you information from the 1856 republican national convention.

I find it interesting that you read things that aren't there and then attack me for saying things that were never said.

gunsmoke is clearly ragging you because he has a more nuanced view of american history, evident through his presentation of the various factions within the republican party in antebellum america. you generalized the republican party as a party formed to combat the evil of slavery! you make the republicans of 1856 seem like saints when only a minority of Americans were abolitionist, as the abolitionist faction was viewed as an extreme fringe group. to refresh your memory, abolitionists were a group that wanted the immediate abolition of slavery, not gradual. also there was a the split within the abolitionist movement over the role of the constitution: one felt that it was slavery document and had to be replaced while the other felt it was inherently an anti-slavery document. and of those who were anti-expansionist, how many were altruistically motivated? were some not, motivated by racial prejudices and economic incentives? only a small minority of anti-expansionists actually believed that blacks were equal. many were bigots. this is an accurate term and not used to demean, but rather to educate and broaden one's understanding. the interactions and shifting paradigms throughout history are too complex to generalized into drivel that goes into a "gee whiz file."

I know to most on LetsRun I'll just sound like another one of those dabbling idiots who support Romney. It's funny, though, that they use cheap humor and not real facts to back up what they're trying to say. Obviously, not one of the candidates (has, or ever will be) the perfect choice. That is why they campaign and discuss, to hopefully win over the American people however they can.

That being said, one can kind of divide the certain aspects of one's life into categories...something like Moral (religious, if they practice), political, social, economic, etc...

And what Romney has demonstrated, not with the past couple of years, but with his life, show him to be generally more Moral (despite wearing that "silly magic underwear" as someone stated above. Again, a cheap knock on his religion that has nothing to do with his candidacy). Has he ever smoked? No. Has he ever been with another woman outside of his own wife? No. Has he ever been divorced? You kidding? You see, for most sane Americans, this should be a positive thing. Shouldn't not smoking, not cheating, etc, be considered GOOD? Again, as stated earlier, he has his flaws. Who doesn't? But his flaws (especially Morally, which very often determines what a person will do in other aspects of their lives) are a lot lesser as compared to the others.

Right now you are reading this and just salivating at all of the ways you're going to "counter" my "defense". You're going to point out small, unimportant, or cheap facts about Romney that supposedly make him inferior. Go ahead. There's a reason people like you aren't in politics: You cannot communicate maturely, effectively, or effeciently, for that matter. If you wanted to get a point (however valid) across to someone, you'd have to use words like "weird, stupid, boring" rather than employing higher (and by higher, i mean more educated and mature, in the general public's eyes...) diction. But whatever.

Heck, I may or may not vote for Romney, but I know that if he got elected the Country wouldn't be slipping as fast in the direction of just pure flat out evil. Call me a religious vigilante, but whatever faith-loving god-fearing religion you're from it doesnt take much to notice where we're headed...and it's scary.

Anyways, time for the mocking and annoying LetsRun mudslingers! Go mudslingers...go...haha

Nice to see someone in the know. But to relevate this to the current discussion, it is exactly the misinformation spouting out of another LSD guy that makes us have to have these discussions in the first place. This thread is so full of red herrings--and fabrications that these leftist conspiracy theorists pull out of their butts--that it makes me sick.

I couldn't care less if the President smokes or sleeps around. The President is there to do a specific job, not to be some sort of role model. And he is most certainly NOT there to preach religion, and that is why any candidate invoking any kind of religious teaching as a political argument is automatically disqualified in my book.

Winston Churchill was the greatest world leader in the 20th century. The guy smoked like a chimney and was probably no saint in his marriage. Compare that to the born-again nut job who's your president right now. People praise his morals (never mind the draft dodging, DUI, and narcotics use) yet he has done more damage to America than any other president in recent history. And you want more of the same. That makes you an idiot, plain and simple.

Can you explain why any of that matters?

If you're going to fly in an airplane, would you rather want a pilot who didn't smoke/fool around or the one most capable to fly the damn plane?

Why should I care if he's a chain smoking womanizer if he's going to do the best job leading the executive branch of government? If you want to argue that Romney's the best candidate because you think that he'll do just that, please: go ahead. But all that moral lifestyle stuff you just mentioned doesn't matter at all.

Case in point: Jimmy Carter was probably the most honest man to ever hold the office. And he was one of the least effective presidents in modern times.

After listening to Romney's speech, I am less convinced he would be our best option for president in 2008.

Carter was a good and honest man but many of his problems stemmed from the fact that he was a micro-manager. Carter wanted to know everything in detail and it stopped the work flow, Carter did not delegate enough work to others. Then there was that dang rabbit.

Another problem with Romney's speech was the complete whitewashing of American religious history. He invoked the abolition and the civil rights movements as examples when the religious community rose up to fight injustice. And he implied that ONLY religious groups could have undertaken these great movements. But while these movements were indeed led by Christians, there were just as many (or more) members of the "Christian community" on the wrong side of these issues. Bible thumpers in aggregate have a horrible track record when it comes to their political stances. The Bible was used as justification for the institution of slavery by many mainstream 18th and 19th century Christians (the Bible itself seems to have no explicit problem with the concept of slavery). More recently, white "Christian" schools were started as a way to keep segregation alive all over the Southern US in the 1950s and 60s. The idea that organized religion has been a consistent force for moral good throughout US history is ridiculous. And world history is even worse (The Inquisition, anyone? The Spanish Civil War? Belgian Congo?).

Getting back to Romney, for a Mormon to invoke the role of religious groups in the civil rights struggle is flat-out hypocritical--like most White religious organizations, the Mormon Church was NOT supporting that struggle at the time (although I certainly acknowledge that some individual Mormons, including maybe Romney's father, were). ML King was not struggling against the tiny numbers of 1960s American atheists; he was struggling against other God-fearing, church-going American Christians who saw no contradiction between their faith and segregation.

So, it's not really all that meaningful to be a "man of faith". What matters is what you want to do in office.

While it's nice that Romney appears to have never smoked, cheated on his wife, been divorced etc - he has stated that he wants to "double" the size of Guantanamo.

Guantanamo is a place where people have no rights and are tortured. There is one undeniable fact about Guantanamo - we have tortured innocent men there.

If that's something that Romney wants more of - than there is no moral standard I know of which can call him a "moral" person - regardless of what he might do in his personal life.

SO a president who wants to capture more of the enemies that a currently trying to destroy America is a bad thing?

Is it more moral to kill the enemies?

Is it more moral to leave them alone and let them plan and execute attacks against the US?

Is it immoral to send people to a location where where bad things have happened in the past? What if those bad things were stopped?

Your moral standard might need a little tweaking.

Nobody says Mormons don't believe in the NT. I, for one, don't think your belief that Joseph Smith, twice convicted of con scams, found some gold plates writtten by an angel and translated them by looking through special glasses into his hat, is any stupider than what regular Christians believe, only more recent. Mormons give us a fine example of how Christianity might have been born - a syncretic blend of religious ideas with a little outright fraud thrown in here and there. When Christians can't see that, for example, the Book of Daniel is a book by a 2nd century BC author written in the guise of a 6th century BC author (as it seems to be pretty dim about the facts of its own time, but quite clear about "the future") why should they pronounce Mormons stupid who can't see the Book of Mormon is a 19th century book, cribbed completely from a few easily exposed sources.

Do you honestly think that when Lucy Harris stole the first chapter of the Book of Mormon and then challenged Joseph to translate it again, the angel told him not to for punishment rather than the fact that since he was making it up as he went along he knew the second edition would differ? Does the church teach you about the Kinderhook plates or "reformed Hieroglyphics?"

Mormonism just goes to demonstrate to Christinas that smart people an believe stupid things and the internecince war between earnestly held revelations (equally absurd) provides great entertainment for us secularists. I prefer the Mormons because at least they don't believe in hell.

"(despite wearing that "silly magic underwear" as someone stated above. Again, a cheap knock on his religion that has nothing to do with his candidacy"

Need the point be any clearer. The Republicans made a political issue out of religion long ago - constantly declaring that non-believers are not fit to hold office. So why on earth must a loon who doesn't have the good judgement to reject this obvious fraud get a free pass on his beliefs when he is so quick to judge teh beliefs of others. Religious beliefs are not protected from criticism just because they are called religious, especially when they have policy implications. If someone can declare they would not vote for an atheist, then I can declare I would not vote for a Mormon (and, truth be told, I probably WOULD vote for a Mormon since I think many of them don't really believe the garbage completely, just like many Christians instinctively know that God isn't going to burn gays forever or condemn you for any number of "sins".)

Believe me, I am on the Mormon's side in the Mormon vs. Evangelical war. It is utterly unfair to call them a cult if you exempt evangelical chruches from that label. Mormon's are a living retort to every Christian argument aout the proof of Christianity.

I want to address the Mormon underwear controversy. I doubt many Mormons know where this "revelation" came from. You can read about it in several good scholarly biographies of Joseph Smith or histories of the Mormon Church (some even by Mormon scholars who must exist in a state of cognitive dissonance as the books are honest and damming yet THEY STILL BELIEVE!)

Joseph Smith became a Freemason and climbed to the highest degree in just a few weeks and had a "revelation" about the temple ceremony that was strangely similar to the Freemason ceremony he had just inacted. The "Mormon Underwear" is just masonic apronage.

Innocent until proven guilty?

just a dude wrote:

SO a president who wants to capture more of the enemies that a currently trying to destroy America is a bad thing?

Is it more moral to kill the enemies?

Is it more moral to leave them alone and let them plan and execute attacks against the US?

Is it immoral to send people to a location where where bad things have happened in the past? What if those bad things were stopped?

Your moral standard might need a little tweaking.

If everyone who was captured and brought to guantanamo was guilty of planning attacks against the US than you might have a point. The truth is that we brought many people to guantanamo on flimsy evidence. We paid Afghani's thousands of dollars a head - so of course people named innocent people just so they could make some cash.

If all we were doing is "holding" them you might have a point as well - but the evidence shows that we were basically torturing them. Torturing innocent people is about as immoral as you can get.

Romney didn't say anything about changing what happens inside guantanamo. He said he's double it - meaning that he had no problem with whatever was done there.