The May 13 edition of "60 Minutes" ran a generally positive piece on former Massachusetts Governor and Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Correspondent Mike Wallace’s toughest questions were on topics where conservatives expressed concern, such as Romney’s inconsistent stances on social issues. However, one aspect of the interview involved Wallace’s question of Mitt Romney’s five sons with a less than subtle implication.
The veteran CBS journalist asked if any of them decided to "put on a uniform and go to war." When they admitted to not serving, a shocked Wallace noted, "not one agreed or thought about serving in the military." Wallace then asked Mitt Romney if he ever served. After Romney admitted to not serving, Wallace emphasized that the former governor’s "very high lottery number" never came up.
The implication on display is that Romney, a staunch supporter of the Iraq War, has not and will not sacrifice himself. The entire transcript is below.
MIKE WALLACE: While all of them have served their church doing missionary work around the world... has any one of you ever decided that you're going to put on a uniform and go to war?
JOSH ROMNEY: I feel guilty having not done it.
BEN ROMNEY: I've seen a lot and read a lot that has made me say, "my goodness, I hope I never have to do that."
WALLACE: Not one agreed or thought about serving in the military.
MATT ROMNEY: There are other sacrifices to make as well, and I hope to be able to make a sacrifice of that, you know, of that caliber at some point in my life.
WALLACE: Did you ever serve in the armed forces?
FORMER MASSACHUSETTS GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY: I did not.
WALLACE: Why not?
ROMNEY: I was at college. Then I went off and served my church for two and a half years.
WALLACE: In a mission.
ROMNEY: In a mission.
WALLACE: And because of his high lottery number, he was never drafted to serve in Vietnam, something he says he regrets to this day.
—Justin McCarthy is a news analyst at Media Research Center.
Comments Policy
MIKE WALLACE: While all of
May 14, 2007 - 18:20 ET by FlashmanMIKE WALLACE: While all of them have served their church doing missionary work around the world... has any one of you ever decided that you're going to put on a uniform and go to war?
So once Wallace realised he couldn't go after Romney's children for being privileged, elitist and not compassionate he decided to bring up the old chickenhawk argument.
I guess the "have you
May 14, 2007 - 21:46 ET by motherbeltI guess the "have you served" question is reserved for the men in the race, and their kids. Can anyone imagine asking Hillary why she never served in the military? Or how about Chelsea???? (We do have lots of women soldiers, you know). Yeah, right, that'll happen. Well if it did, she could resurrect her story about how she once tried to join the Marines and was turned down because of her eyesight and her age. Like she was just dying to put on the uniform and go fight for her country. Gag.
The question was legitimate.
May 15, 2007 - 05:56 ET by rb scottThe question was legitimate. The U.S. is involved in a war that Romney supports generally. He has five sons of a certain age who would be vulnerable were there a draft. It is also worth noting that Wallace has been very friendly (and fair) toward the Mormon Church over the years. Even friendly journalists ask tough questions and make trenchant observations from time to time. Wallace's question was not evidence of media bias. Not at all.
RB Scott
They would be vulnerable were
May 15, 2007 - 06:05 ET by UnsaneThey would be vulnerable were there a draft, but as much as it pains you, people join our military of their own freewill.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
So, in order to support the w
May 15, 2007 - 07:20 ET by SouthJersey1953So, in order to support the war on terror, you have to send your sons? I am sorry, but I do not follow your logic.
No RINOs in '08 - Vote for a true conservative!
Maybe this isn't the best e
May 14, 2007 - 18:25 ET by Night WatchmanMaybe this isn't the best example of NB exposing media bias.
I guess they're trying to say the Romney's are proud chicken hawks and that's OK.
Where are the "scathing&
May 14, 2007 - 18:29 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveWhere are the "scathing" interviews about Hillary's, Obama's, and Edward's absence of military service?
That is where the bias is.
This story had the purpose of showing that Romney and his family are devoted to their religion, but not as devoted to their country. It was a hit-piece.
"Believe what you want. You work your side of the street, and I'll work mine." --Frank Bullitt
Mean GThose three are again
May 14, 2007 - 18:47 ET by Night WatchmanMean G
Those three are against the war, there is at least no hypocrisy.
I think Wallace nailed it.
I would easily vote for Jim Webb before any of the above.
Have you given YOUR time, watchman?
May 14, 2007 - 19:17 ET by RJHave you given significantly of your time anywhere, watchman? Say, to a church organization? Perhaps to your community? How about to your country?
Or do you just let others do that as you sit by, cynically calling them hypocrits?
By the way, using your own logic, if you haven't served in the military, then you don't have the right to make judgments of any kind about war.
Those three are against the
May 14, 2007 - 21:52 ET by motherbeltThose three are against the war, there is at least no hypocrisy.-Night Watchman
So because they are against this war, there is no hypocrisy regarding whether they were in the military 5 or 10 or more years ago???? That's a bit of a stretch. Besides, if they are against war in principle, and that's why they never served in the military, who needs a President who doesn't believe in war? How would they ever have the nerve to send our military anywhere for anything? Oh, I guess a war decided upon by a Democratic President would be a good war, a worthwhile war.
Yes, like the high-altitude b
May 14, 2007 - 21:55 ET by botgYes, like the high-altitude bombing of Kosovo (no collatteral damage with that procedure----at least not to report in the NYT)
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
No they're not
May 15, 2007 - 11:09 ET by Mr. BishopThose "three" are not against a war. At least two of them voted for the war, and when the political opportunity arose for their dissent of the war to achieve a political upperhand, they jumped on it in a heartbeat. Don't be so naive as to think that Edwards and Clinton are standing on principles against Iraq. They're not. They are acting in typical hypocritical fashion.
As to the serving of Mitt Romney's kids or not -- let's get one thing perfectly straight: This country's military service is volunteer only. They have the choice to serve, or not to serve. They chose not to serve. I fail to see any reason that should reflect upon Romney. Does that philosophy then mean that my father is the perfect candidate for president since not only did he serve for 19 years, 4 of his 5 "of age" and "physically able" children did as well -- leaving only the 10-year old and his daughter with pins in her hips unable to?
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Dude... lighten up..
Mean Gene,I agree, it was a &
May 14, 2007 - 19:23 ET by BlondeMean Gene,
I agree, it was a "hit piece".
Wallace also went off on a rant about the War in Iraq, repeatedly trying to get Mitt Romney to admit "that Bush had screwed up" (Wallace's words). Too bad Mitt didn't bite.
On the whole, Mitt and his family comported themselves extremely well. Wallace was the one who came off looking like an idealogue.
That's nonsense, watchman
May 14, 2007 - 18:33 ET by RJ"proud chickenhawks and that's ok"
Nonsense, watchman. Mormons are brought up with the idea that they will serve by doing missionary work. Wallace knows this and pushed one of the favorite phony liberal attacks anyway.
And serving a mission doesn't
May 14, 2007 - 18:42 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveAnd serving a mission doesn't necessarily preclude miliatry service. I served a mission for the LDS church and then Joined the USAF two years after I completed my mission. Many returned missionaries enter directly into college/marriage upon their return from missionary service. Most people that join the military do so between the ages of 17 and 21. The youngest age a missionary can return from a mission is 21, if one wants a commission, they need to graduate college prior to obtaining a commission as most missionaries have only one, maybe two years of college completed before they server their mission. If one returns from their mission and enters college, it is quite counter-productive to then enlist in the military.
"Believe what you want. You work your side of the street, and I'll work mine." --Frank Bullitt
Thanks for the excellent details, Gene
May 14, 2007 - 18:52 ET by RJThanks for the excellent details about how a young Mormon's choices evolve, Gene. Ignored by Wallace and "chickenhawk" liberals looking to score political points is that Mormons give of their time at a much higher rate than most Americans. Some, as you did, do go into the military afterwards, but it's not surprising or a negative that others don't.
RJ:As an MI officer I can tel
May 15, 2007 - 11:01 ET by BDRJ:
As an MI officer I can tell you my career field is filled with LDS due to two factors.
1.) The Mormon churches emphasis on language training provides exceptional candidates for MI folks in some fairly esoteric languages (Tagalog, Ibo, etc) which we find desireable.
2.) Mormons are very patriotic in general.
So this catholic kid says the LDS bashers should "Lay off."
Yes yes
May 15, 2007 - 11:05 ET by Mr. BishopYes -- it is a fairly undeniable fact, that most Mormons that do join the military end up in MI. The reasoning is exactly as you mentioned -- the languages they learn. Other then the language school in Monterrey that the military has, the one LDS mission prep center in Utah, where the languages are taught, is probably the best one around.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Dude... lighten up..
Concur. We used to send my
May 15, 2007 - 13:35 ET by BDConcur. We used to send my Russian linguists to Brigham Young University back in the day for advanced training.... But that was 10 years ago, and I am getting ancient...
Mean Gene Dr. Love - Mitt was
May 14, 2007 - 21:05 ET by ding7777Mean Gene Dr. Love - Mitt was 20 during his mission service - in France. Hey, maybe he tried to convert the Paris Peace talks Viet Cong delegates to Mormonism.
That's a particularly insipid post, ding
May 14, 2007 - 22:01 ET by RJThat's a particularly insipid post, ding....even for you.
Ding,Why don't you detail for
May 14, 2007 - 22:04 ET by BlondeDing,
Why don't you detail for us your two years of community service?
Or your two years of service to your faith?
Or your two years of military service?
Or your idiot history of trolling here?
An answer, any answer from you, might be a breath of fresh air.
Oops....sorry RJ, posted in the wrong place. Multi-tasking, none to well, I might add.
Blonde,Your post would have a
May 14, 2007 - 22:07 ET by botgBlonde,
Your post would have also worked as a question for Dennis Kucinich on your forum
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
It still fits, Blonde
May 14, 2007 - 22:09 ET by RJIt still fits, Blonde ;^>
Bruce,Yes, that forum post.
May 14, 2007 - 22:13 ET by BlondeBruce,
Yes, that forum post. I thought it was an interesting topic.
I liked your HRC questions....did you see anything regarding Bay Buchanan's new book about Her Thighness?
Hillary is going to flame out soon, I really can't wait to see it.
I heard a little of Bay on Ha
May 14, 2007 - 22:25 ET by botgI heard a little of Bay on Hannity during my commute home. If the Hildabeast flames out then what? Barrack(i have no experience but i rook marbollus)? A charge to enlist Gore?
BTW did all work out with 28? year employee?
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
If Hillary flames out, who ca
May 14, 2007 - 22:36 ET by BlondeIf Hillary flames out, who cares?
The book sounds rather fascinating.
As to the other, I'll pm you. Not something to be discussed, generally.
If Hillary flames out, who ca
May 14, 2007 - 22:39 ET by botgIf Hillary flames out, who cares?
correct answer, move ahead two spaces
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Indeed
May 15, 2007 - 11:02 ET by Mr. BishopMy older brother served a mission in Poland for two years, and was in Iraq from 2004-2005. I, however, chose not to serve a mission for the church.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Dude... lighten up..
chicken hawksHillary Clinton
May 15, 2007 - 07:09 ET by dahliatraverschicken hawks
Hillary Clinton was decidedly for the war before she was against it. Remind me, now. What branch of the military does Chelsea serve in ...?
http://www.slate.com/id/2159572/
Justin Hart at MyManMitt.
May 14, 2007 - 18:32 ET by Ken ShepherdJustin Hart at MyManMitt.com was pleased overall. He doesn't even mention the military question, but I suspect pro-Mitt bloggers are likely to accentuate the positive in order to get more eyes to peep the YouTube excerpts and to play up Romney's press, as well as his standing in the primary.
How many Mayors have served
May 14, 2007 - 21:02 ET by MidAmericaHow many Mayors have served as city police?
How many Governors have served as State Police?
How many CEO's have served as guards?
Perfect comparison...(BTW - D
May 15, 2007 - 04:45 ET by SouthJersey1953Perfect comparison...
(BTW - Did Mike Wallace or any of his children serve? How can he ask any quesiton about the military if he didn't?)
No RINOs in '08 - Vote for a true conservative!
Please - refresh my failing m
May 14, 2007 - 21:27 ET by StickfarmPlease - refresh my failing memory.
When did the Defeatocrats hero Bill serve ?
I don't think one iota less of Mitt because he or his sons did not serve. Nowhere in the Constitution does it state that to be President and C-In-C that either you or children must have served.
The left (i.e., "main stream media") holds conservative candidates to far different standards than their own. If Hillary somehown wins (shudder.....) will they start questioning her when Chelsea is going to enlist ? Probably not.
Stickfarm
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
I don't remember Hillary enco
May 14, 2007 - 21:39 ET by botgI don't remember Hillary encouraging Chelsea to up.
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Since the military regularly
May 15, 2007 - 10:56 ET by BDSince the military regularly polls at 80-86% conservative, I would guess lots of conservative mothers and fathers urge their children to join the military in approximately 6 times the rate of liberals.
Therefore, the question should be, what is wrong with liberal America?
Charlie Rangel wishes to draft his liberal kiddies so that he can have viable candidates in twenty years, but will not ask them to volunteer..... Same same the others...
I am shocked that one of my m
May 14, 2007 - 23:21 ET by Roger the ShrubberI am shocked that none of my more "progressive" comrades haven't posted that tired, over-used link to a web page showing all those brave Democrat(ic)s who served, and those damn, Nazi Neothug Chicken Hawks who didn't.
I mean, after all, the same old 3-year-old crap gets re-hashed by the various socialists, er, I mean, "progressives" who come here, so why would today be any different?
classy Mike
May 15, 2007 - 00:28 ET by bacadogHe doesn''t have any idea what the concept of performing missionary work is. So, he makes light of that nobel service, and presses on military service. You know, Christians preaching the word of God to heathens is only a minor lede. Dodging the draft, or avoiding service, now by-god, that's a story worthy of the msm.
Asshole.
Book of Mormon
May 15, 2007 - 03:10 ET by m1xramChristians preaching the word of God
Yes, this I know. How does that relate to the Book of Mormon? Let's not get confused here, the teachings of "prophet" Smith are not the Bible.
The truth of Christ was never hidden, his followers have been around since He left us and Christ is the only foundation of the Church.
If you haven't guessed it by now, I'm not voting for Mitt. Hope the Rebulicans come up with somebody soon.
m1xram
Here we go again
May 15, 2007 - 11:17 ET by Mr. BishopLet it go. I am really getting tired of the misinformation and the intentional smearing.
First -- he said word of God. He did not say Bible. That completely aside -- Mormons on their mission not only relate the Book of Mormon, they also share the Bible with people. Second, since you don't know anything about Joseph Smith, you wouldn't know that his teachings were about the Bible, in addition to the Book of Mormon. I am really getting tired of this nonsensical babbling about how Joseph Smith and the LDS church does not read/believe/teach the Bible. That is garbage, stop repeating it.
You don't want to vote for Romney? Fine, that's your choice. At this moment in time, I'd rather not vote for him, even being Mormon because of all the crap Mormon hating jacktards are throwing out at the drop of a hat. However, whether you choose to vote for Romney or not -- don't spread lies about his religion -- intentionally or otherwise.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Dude... lighten up..
mormon lighten up
May 15, 2007 - 20:46 ET by m1xramI'm just going by what I read on LDS.org and Mormon.org. Some of what I've read there doesn't jive with the Bible.
Never said I was a "Mormon hating jacktard" so I'll not take offense and assume you mean someone else. LOL Didn't say "LDS church does not read/believe/teach the Bible", just said the teachings of Joseph Smith were not the Bible, specifically relating to the Book of Mormon.
It's not a personal attack, or a smear, to point out what is true. People need to understand what they're getting into so they can make the best decision. For instance: if someone told me they were joining the KKK to become a Christian I'd have to point out that the KKK doesn't follow the teachings of Christ.
In the spirit of "lightening up" please note that I am NOT comparing the KKK to Mormons. Please feel free to examine Mormon.org and LDS.org in the context of the Bible and get back to me.
Everyone has a decision to make, choose what your heart tells you.
The last part is really really hard.
m1xram
m1xram
May 15, 2007 - 21:10 ET by RJI suppose you have every right to vote by religion, but in my opinion that's a poor way to choose the President of the United States. Does that mean that if Romney is the nominee you'll be sitting out, or throw your vote away on some write-in who doesn't offend your sense of "proper" religion?
As for me, I hope Romney is the nominee, because he has the talent and experience to lead this country well. But if he's not the nominee, I'll vote for whoever it is, even if I have to hold my nose and vote for Rudy. I won't like it, but it will be better than anything the Democrats offer.
canidates
May 15, 2007 - 22:37 ET by m1xramI'm looking for canidates who are like our Forefathers. Someone who believes, as they did, that God and the Bible are the foundation of our country. Still waiting for the Republicans to find such a person.
So, why would voting for a person, with the values of the Forefathers, be a poor way to choose?
m1xram
m1xram, I am a Mormon, and
May 15, 2007 - 22:52 ET by Conservative Voicem1xram, I am a Mormon, and I am someone who believes in God and in the Bible and I understand our forefather's belief and use of the Bible to create our form of government. Most Mormons are conservative AND take the constitution very seriously. Take off the blinders and take out your ear plugs.
If you are looking for a Bible Thumper for President, good luck.
Bible Thumper for President
May 15, 2007 - 23:17 ET by m1xramOk CV.
Bush studied the Bible and so did Reagan. Before the 1940's most of the presidents believed and studied the Bible.
I think I'm seeing clearly and certainly do hear you. You're saying, "I don't like your comments," I get it. I've been accused of lying and smearing people a few times now. It's still unclear how.
I'm still not upset and am not trying to upset anyone.
m1xram
Bible thumper is different
May 15, 2007 - 23:21 ET by Conservative VoiceBible thumper is different from someone who just studies the Bible. As I read the Bible and learn from the Bible and study it. A Bible thumper is one who preaches from the Bible and declaring everyone who doesn't believe as he does is going straight to hell, and he is THE authority on how to interpret the Bible. President Bush and President Reagan never did that.
A Bible thumper is a Pharasee.
CV....Bible Thumper?I am conf
May 15, 2007 - 23:31 ET by BlondeCV....
Bible Thumper?
I am confused.
I am so totally appalled by the vitriol that I see here, on a daily basis.
My only suggestion is to try to suggest to the bashers that it gets taken over to a forum thread. I know you've done that repeatedly.
The way I see Bible thumpers
May 15, 2007 - 23:34 ET by Conservative VoiceThe way I see Bible thumpers is Bible Thumpers = Debra. I encourage all to read the Bible and live by its principles, but when we start getting all preachy and holier than thou, that declaring who goes to hell, that is a Bible thumper.
I am sick of this argument, as I know you are as well.
Bible thumper is a Pharasee
May 15, 2007 - 23:35 ET by m1xramAs per your semantics, I'm not interested in "Bible thumpers as presidents" then. I thought you meant a person who believes in the Bible.
m1xram
m1xram
May 15, 2007 - 22:54 ET by RJm1xram, you're being disingenuous. You've combined an open dislike for Mormons with a statement that you would not vote for Romney. Rather than making a choice based on experience and ability, you're making it on religion.
Several of our founding fathers were Deists, by the way......
you're being disingenuous
May 15, 2007 - 23:30 ET by m1xramI thought I said what I meant and why, and was sincere about it. I don't remember expressing "an open dislike for Mormons with a statement that you would not vote for Romney". Your statement does qualify as "falsely or hypocritically ingenuous" though because you imply that I don't like people who I wouldn't vote for. That's just not true. Mitt seems like a nice guy and so does Rudy.
Several of the Forefathers were not Deists, only two or three were. If you think John Locke was check out Wall Builders.
m1xram
Are you serious?
May 15, 2007 - 23:39 ET by Mr. Bishop"Several of the Forefathers were not Deists, only two or three were". Your statement.
Several (definition): being more than two but fewer than many in number or kind.
Looks like three cuts it as "several".
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Dude... lighten up..
not Deists
May 16, 2007 - 00:13 ET by m1xramAlright, point taken. Let's say it this way: Almost all of them were not.
m1xram
m1xram
May 15, 2007 - 23:42 ET by RJm1xram, instead of quibbling over the word "several", answer this: how do you reconcile your religious bigotry that even ONE Founder was a Deist, given your open distain for any who don't follow the "right" religion?
And, yes, the word disingenuous fits your posts perfectly. For example, you said you would not vote for Romney in one of the same posts in which you denigrated his faith. Meanwhile, you're hiding behind the lie of pretending to be simply giving out information, when you know exactly what you are doing. That makes you a liar.
open distain
May 16, 2007 - 00:11 ET by m1xramI've gone from lying, to smearing, to open distain, all of which I've not done. You guys are leaving me with the impression that personal attacks are you're only argument. I'm still not upset but will have to discontinue before your heads spin off. BTW, that was not my intent either.
Now I'm even a religious bigot because I suggest we follow the Bible. LOL You guys are very hostile.
m1xram
No, just calling you on your insinuations m1xram
May 16, 2007 - 00:19 ET by RJNot hostile, just calling you on your insinuations m1xram. You feint and dodge, pretending you're not a religious bigot, but you are.
P.S. I'm not a Mormon, I just dislike religious bigotry, and I think it's the height of stupidity to choose a President based on religion.
tolerance
May 16, 2007 - 00:32 ET by m1xramI think it's the height of stupidity to choose a President based on religion.
That's your right to think that way, but I'm sticking with the foundation that the country was built on. Sorry, but that's my right.
If I was a bigot I would propose banning other religions, which I'm not. Tolerance is the Christian way. But you don't believe what I'm saying, do you?
m1xram
Fine
May 16, 2007 - 00:35 ET by Mr. BishopExplain to me how Romney does not support sticking to the foundation the country was built on. He believes in a country that worships God, and he believes and reads the Bible. What's your problem? According to your "definition" of what you are voting on -- he is the perfect cadidate for you.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Dude... lighten up..
back to the beginning
May 16, 2007 - 00:44 ET by m1xramBishop, that was my first post. Now we've gone full circle.
m1xram
Nope
May 16, 2007 - 00:49 ET by Mr. BishopThat is where you are mistaken. You have said, very clearly now -- your definition of the perfect candidate is one that believes in the "foundations this country" was made upon -- belief in God and the Bible. Your first post was erroneous in your assumption that Mormons do not believe, read, or teach the Bible. As your first statement was proven false -- you tell me -- what reason do you have for not voting for Mitt Romney, since he meets your criteria?
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Dude... lighten up..
Book of Mormon
May 16, 2007 - 00:51 ET by m1xramYou're going to flame me, I know it. Rather than my incorrect interpretation, tell me where the Book of Mormon fits in with the Bible. Does it supersede the Bible? Does it augment the Bible?
m1xram
Have I ever?
May 16, 2007 - 01:01 ET by Mr. BishopHave I ever said anything in regards to the Book of Mormon superseding the Bible? No, haven't ever said that. I have always maintained that it supports the Bible, that is to be read in addition to the Bible. In other words, as has always been said by the LDS church: it is another testament of Christ.
Now, don't play innocent and say, "You're going to flame me, I know it." You've spent the better part of the last 2 hours on here trying to say that Joseph Smith did not teach the Bible. I provided your own words to this effect. You have also said you don't like Mitt Romney -- for whatever your reasoning.
Now, I will say it one last time, and I truly hope that everyone reads it:
I do not want to discuss religion. I am here to discuss politics, not religion. I will no longer answer any questions about my religion, and ask that people stop trying to push theirs on me, and stop trying to constantly bash people's religions on here. It's old, it's ridiculous, and it's really quite petty to do so.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Dude... lighten up..
end flame
May 16, 2007 - 01:26 ET by m1xramSorry, I was only asking a question to try and find out. I didn't want to make an incorrect interpretation.
I see that you will not accept my correction, thank you for your tolerance. I didn't mean to say Joseph did not teach the Bible. Feel free to post my original words again to prove your point. Make sure you leave out the correction.
I've spent hours discussing religion and now you tell me it was a waste of time.
Oh, and thanks for not flaming me by saying that I was bashing peoples' religion and being petty. Really appreciate that.
These things always turn into a flame war, don't they.
m1xram
No I don't, m1xram
May 16, 2007 - 00:43 ET by RJNo I don't, m1xram. If you were tolerant, you wouldn't be spending so much time questioning the faith of others.
Of course it's your right to vote as you choose. But if a man has high moral values it doesn't matter which religion he practices. Basing your vote on religious ideology rather than finding the individual who can best lead, defend and hold our country together is bigoted and foolish.
You still haven't answered my questions: would you vote for a Mormon? would you vote for a Deist?
I did answer you, must be i
May 16, 2007 - 00:58 ET by m1xramI did answer you, must be in another part of this thread. This thing is growing out of control. Anyway, the answer is no.
God's wisdom is found within the Bible, so the person who best understands it will be the best for the country.
m1xram
That's silly, m1xram. By your logic, the best person to
May 16, 2007 - 01:10 ET by RJThat's silly. By your logic, the best person to run the country would be a preacher. I guess you won't be voting any more....just give the country to the leftists...yes, THAT will show 'em how strong your values are....
But it's interesting how you're able to manipulate your values. "I must have exactly the same type of man as the Founders.....well, as long as it's not one of those awful Deists....they don't count."
That's what I thought. No Mormons, no Deists....it just took a long time to get you to finally admit it......
new president
May 16, 2007 - 01:48 ET by m1xramThat's silly. By your logic, the best person to run the country would
be a preacher. I guess you won't be voting any more....just give the
country to the leftists...yes, THAT will show 'em how strong your
values are....
That's not true, we could have another Reagan or Bush, couldn't we? They had and have lots of Biblical knowledge and were not preachers. And, there's lots of more out there.
m1xram
Here is what gets me. A vo
May 15, 2007 - 21:13 ET by Conservative VoiceHere is what gets me. A vote for Romney does not mean you agree with Mormon Doctorine, nor does not mean you are bound to join the Mormons. Yet we have people like you who make it a point to not only lie and smear, but make it a point to claim that if you like Romney you are going against the Bible and what the Bible says. Really? Last time I checked the Bible, wasn't there something about Caesar? Now to me, that means Jesus didn't care who is in office, it doesn't change your view on life or your religious philosophy...should be a lesson to you, to Debra, to trach, tumbler, and all others who think they need to beat people over the head about our doctorine...and who get bent out of shape when a Mormon calls them on it.
I am tired of dealing with small minded individuals.
Hey CV, I think you've got m
May 15, 2007 - 22:26 ET by tracheostomyHey CV, I think you've got me confused with Deb and Tumb as I can debate both within reason and beyond institutionalized talking points. Give it a try sometime.
Last time I checked the Bible, wasn't there something about Caesar?
I know what you're referring to. I was actually questioning earlier about the media making a candidate's religion an issue to begin with. Gore certainly had me fooled during 2000. That's the real me, not the caricature that's easier for you to beat up. >;)
Oh, by the way, did you know there was another reference to Caesar in the Bible?
Philippians 4:22
22 All the saints greet you, but especially those who are of Caesar’s household.
But WAIT CV! That would mean that Jesus cares about not only who's in the seat of ancient Roman power, but also the White House. . .right?
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Of course
May 15, 2007 - 22:32 ET by Mr. BishopJesus cares for all people, regardless of their "station" in life. I surely hope that you were not trying to say that due to his "caring" of who is in the White House, that it becomes someone's religious duty to vote against someone because they are not the same direct faith as you (not saying you, specifically -- it's more general).
I have said before, repeatedly -- vote for whom you will, it's none of my business. While I certainly detest the idea of voting for, or against, someone based upon their religion, it is obvious there are those that hate the idea of a Mormon in the White House so much, they would rather vote against them, then against a liberal which they would hate in the White House even more. It seems counterproductive, and I am honestly glad that not everyone in this country feels the same way. Otherwise, we would most likely have a Democrat in the White House every election cycle since the only religion it seems, to the left, is global warming.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Dude... lighten up..
All you guy are seeing it in
May 15, 2007 - 22:41 ET by tracheostomyAll you guys are seeing it in such a negative light.
It's not about voting against the candidate.
I am saying that to me and for me personally: To vote for any one candidate may very well be a vote for a majority of issues in the overall package and ignoring the smaller ones. . .but a candidate's core convictions and the star he sails them by (Kolob) are not one of them. =D
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Confused
May 15, 2007 - 22:53 ET by Mr. BishopWhat are you responding to, specifically. I was responding, specifically, to your comments concerning Jesus "caring who was in the White House". What does core convictions have to do with that?
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Dude... lighten up..
Look at the fruit, not at t
May 15, 2007 - 22:54 ET by Conservative VoiceLook at the fruit, not at the tree.
Stop it CV, you're alluding t
May 15, 2007 - 23:18 ET by tracheostomyStop it CV, you're alluding to doctrine. >;)
If you want to know my real stance on it, it's this:
- I know the LDS church. I know it well. I know that their allegiance is to their leadership over defending and upholding the Constitution. Sure, you can pull the "Kennedy card" on me with this statement.
BUT my argument is: How faithful and loyal was Kennedy to the Pope? If they are faithful, then they should indeed consult the head of their faith first and often. . .no? If Romney was just a MINO, wouldn't he be feeling a little heat right now?
All I'm saying.
- I'm still holding out for Condi to throw her hat in at the last minute. I know. . .I'm dreaming. There's also alot of other candidates that will come on the scene and come out in the wash. I have time. Don't freakin' rush me.
- Just because Hannity endorses Romney doesn't mean I'm not a loyal Reagan conservative.
- I really don't like it when a candidate's religion is made an issue by the media to begin with. But there you are. If it's really such a valid issue (as in their core worldview), I'm going with the one who knows and follows the Biblical test of a prophet.
- If given a choice between a candidate who is genuinely uncertain about God, and one who is going dogmatically in the wrong direction, I'll choose the former over the latter.
- I was fooled about Gore in 2000. I actually fell for the Tipper kiss. So no, I do not vote "religion first" with that suspicion intact.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Condi? Why?
May 15, 2007 - 23:25 ET by Conservative VoiceCondi? Why?
Personally...
May 15, 2007 - 23:36 ET by Mr. BishopI would love to see her in the ring as well. If she ran, she would have so much going for her. You would no longer have the "woman" vote being decidely Democrat (yes, I know it could easily swing that way still), there is no way anyone can genuinely question her foreign policy or national security credentials (National Security Advisor and Secretary of State), and she would run RINGS around Hillary in the intelligence department. There are other reasons, and to be honest -- for the longest time, I suspected Bush was grooming Condi for a run at the White House by placing her in both those roles.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Dude... lighten up..
Bish check your stats, i beli
May 15, 2007 - 22:45 ET by botgBish
check your stats, i believe that there are about 3 times as many protestants than catholics in the US. I still understand your point.
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
On what?
May 15, 2007 - 22:51 ET by Mr. BishopI was merely pointing to the fact that if everyone voted against this religion, or that religion because it was not in line with their religion... it would cause for endless Democrat victories, since their only religion to vote for/against, is global warming (if you don't agree with global warming, you are a heretic, etc.). I know there are more Protestants than Catholics, but from what I read on here -- no one is basing on Protestant v. Catholic... it's narrowly defined religious philosophy they are complaining about. If it were as generalized as you speak of, then the Mormons would have no problem, since they fall under the Protestant wing of Christianity.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Dude... lighten up..
If it were as generalized as
May 15, 2007 - 22:57 ET by tracheostomyIf it were as generalized as you speak of, then the Mormons would have no problem, since they fall under the Protestant wing of Christianity.
What? I'll challenge that if you're really willing to go there. Nothing personal, but I personally know many lifelong Mormons who disagree with that statement.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
He meant we are Protestant as
May 15, 2007 - 23:01 ET by Conservative VoiceHe meant we are Protestant as in not Catholic but Christian nonetheless. We believe the Church was restored, hence not a branch off the Catholic trunk.
Weren't the 17th century prot
May 15, 2007 - 23:04 ET by botgWeren't the 17th and 18th century protestants also apostate according to Joseph Smith?
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Sigh, how many times does t
May 15, 2007 - 23:14 ET by Conservative VoiceSigh, how many times does this have to be said...Joseph Smith is NOT running for high office. Your religious disagreement with Joseph Smith should not matter as far as who to vote for. LOOK at the FRUIT, and not get hung by the tree.
CV did i ever say i would n
May 15, 2007 - 23:17 ET by botgCV did i ever say i would not vote for Romney based on his religion? No in fact i have said that if he wins the nomination i will vote for him (note my tag)
my last post was in response to your post just above it
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Maybe so botg, I know you hav
May 15, 2007 - 23:23 ET by Conservative VoiceMaybe so botg, I know you have said as much...but I was trying to remind you and others that Joseph Smith isn't running for President.
CV we all know that Joseph
May 15, 2007 - 23:49 ET by botgCV we all know that Joseph Smith is not running, but did he teach that the Protestant (and Catholic) churches of the 17th and 18th centuries were apostate?
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
I emailed a response, thoug
May 16, 2007 - 01:00 ET by Conservative VoiceI emailed a response, though I am having a hard time seeing why this question is important. All religions assert theirs is true do they not? How does the position of my Church change on how Romney will govern?
CV,Don't you find all of this
May 16, 2007 - 01:08 ET by BlondeCV,
Don't you find all of this "misdirection" annoying?
I do.
We all see our world through our own filters.
And as I've said before, others are immoveable in their positions.
Very, especially when peopl
May 16, 2007 - 01:29 ET by Conservative VoiceVery, especially when people misdirect with an assertion to what I believe and they don't know what they are talking about.
I don't care how many "
May 15, 2007 - 23:07 ET by Mr. BishopI don't care how many "lifelong" Mormons you have known. I come from a Mormon family. I was raised Mormon. I grew up all over the country (literally), in various Mormon churches. I spent the last two years of my high school life in Mormon belt (the area from Southeaster Idaho to Central Utah). What you know as "many lifelong" Mormons, pales in any comparison to the amount I know, or have known. However, we're not here to play the, "I know more" game at all. If you want to know more about it... then visit here. The important parts are at the bottom. To make it easier, I shall quote the areas in question:
Some Christians divide the tens of thousands of denominations which consider themselves to be Christian into three main groups: Roman Catholics, Protestants and Eastern Orthodox. within this classification, the Mormon movement would be considered part of Protestantism.
Some make four divisions: Anglican, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant and Roman Catholic. Again, Mormons would be considered Protestant.
Others define Protestantism as consisting of those faith group who trace their history back to the Protestant Reformati