Mitt Romney To Enter Presidential Race

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 28 2011 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


You ruled a man out because of his religious beliefs. That is bigotry. End of story.




posted on May, 28 2011 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by mishigas
 


No. Its not. I ruled a man out because he believes in a "religion" that can be demonstrably be proven to be based on flat out lies. Hard science can refute central claims.

I reject a man for president because is is dumb, OR delusional, OR who cannot be bothered to inform himself about something HE believes his immortal soul depends upon getting right. None of those options make him attractive as a leader.

All things labeled religion do not deserve equal respect.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 



You dont even know if I believe in ANY God from what I wrote, but because I said, 'I can tolerate religiosity in a President" an intelligent person might assume I was not, myself, religious. It would still be only an assumption, and possibly untrue, but it wouldnt be even close to being as out there are your assumption based on nothing I said.


That's because I don't give a crap what your religious beliefs are, or if you even have any.



Originally posted by mishigas
So you've satisfied your intellect without having to work too hard. All you needed was a 4 letter word - cult.

You talk about Mormonism as being "provably not true". I challenge you to show me a religion that is provably true.


Which again, shows YOUR ignorance. I myself would never argue that. Go read Poppers argument about the limits of science and get back to me, or, better yet, dont get back to me. I chose my words to express exactly what I meant. Not what you want to argue against. My argument is clear and simple. Im sorry you cant understand it. Not my problem.


It actually is your problem. I bet you accept a Christian president. So you believe that a woman can be a virgin and give birth, 2,000 years ago, eh? Or any other Biblical stories. You're pretty selective on which fables you believe and/or accept, aren't you?



If someone believes in something that can be shown, demonstrably, NOT to be true, they are either mentally ill, or stupid, or hopelessly uninformed. I dont want a president who is any of that. A president who holds a belief which can neither be proven or disproven sits in a different category. Sorry. Its just the way it goes.


See above.
edit on 28-5-2011 by mishigas because: (no reason given)
edit on 28-5-2011 by mishigas because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by mishigas
 


Again, have fun arguing against yourself. I never said I believe in any of that. YOU did.

Why bother hitting the respond key if all you really plan to do is make me into a sock puppet so you can argue against your own ideas?

Edit t oadd,

And dont go to Vegas if all your betting in reply to me is any indication of your skill in calculating odds.
edit on 28-5-2011 by Illusionsaregrander because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 



Again, have fun arguing against yourself. I never said I believe in any of that. YOU did.

Why bother hitting the respond key if all you really plan to do is make me into a sock puppet so you can argue against your own ideas?

Edit t oadd,

And dont go to Vegas if all your betting in reply to me is any indication of your skill in calculating odds.


So you're saying that you wouldn't accept a Christian president since much of the Bible can be scientifically proven to be untrue?

That is exactly what you implied with Mormonism. Let's put your exact quote here, so there's no confusion:



If someone believes in something that can be shown, demonstrably, NOT to be true, they are either mentally ill, or stupid, or hopelessly uninformed. I dont want a president who is any of that. A president who holds a belief which can neither be proven or disproven sits in a different category. Sorry. Its just the way it goes.


So, would you or would you not accept a Christian president?



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Guys, guys, guys... I brought this up because I didn't know much about him. Obviously people have their views, and even if this guy runs, I would still vote for Ron Paul. I didn't mean to start something that would end up in a religious debate.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Romney would be a terrible idea for the US. Why support someone who would continue down the same dreadful path we have sadly been trotting along?



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 09:40 PM
link   
Mit's kinda the John Kerry of the GOP right now. People might vote for him over the opposing party's guy, but no one really gets too excited about him.

The GOP have no interest in winning the WH in 2012.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 02:44 AM
link   
reply to post by incrediblelousminds
 



Mit's kinda the John Kerry of the GOP right now. People might vote for him over the opposing party's guy, but no one really gets too excited about him.


He did pretty well in '08, and he is a money-making machine. He raised $10.25 in one day, so there are some people who back him.


The GOP have no interest in winning the WH in 2012.


I'm afraid you're right. They are so damned timid. The Dem's are much more determined to win.

The establishment Repub's are afraid to 'engage' the Dem's, it seems. Too much Mr. Nice Guy.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by incrediblelousminds
 



Mit's kinda the John Kerry of the GOP right now. People might vote for him over the opposing party's guy, but no one really gets too excited about him.


He did pretty well in '08, and he is a money-making machine. He raised $10.25 in one day, so there are some people who back him.


Wow, ten whole dollars?
Yes, but then he was also thrown under the bus in favor of McCainPalin.


The GOP have no interest in winning the WH in 2012.


I'm afraid you're right. They are so damned timid. The Dem's are much more determined to win.

The establishment Repub's are afraid to 'engage' the Dem's, it seems. Too much Mr. Nice Guy.

No, i'm not saying they are 'afraid'. I am saying it is not politically expedient for them to win the WH in 2012. Mit will likely get the nomination, and lose epically. If the GOP lose in 2012 they can basically assure a landslide victory in 2016, which is their aim. The economy s in the tank and will not get better for years. Why woul they want a prominent leadership role that wold have to take responsibility for that problem? Better to blame the dems.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by incrediblelousminds
 




Wow, ten whole dollars? Yes, but then he was also thrown under the bus in favor of McCainPalin.


Good one!
I meant $102.50.

No, seriously, ten million.


No, i'm not saying they are 'afraid'. I am saying it is not politically expedient for them to win the WH in 2012. Mit will likely get the nomination, and lose epically. If the GOP lose in 2012 they can basically assure a landslide victory in 2016, which is their aim. The economy s in the tank and will not get better for years. Why woul they want a prominent leadership role that wold have to take responsibility for that problem? Better to blame the dems.


Interesting take on it....they could use the 2012 election to win the Senate.

But they seemed to have used that tactic in 2008.?
edit on 29-5-2011 by mishigas because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas


But they seemed to have used that tactic in 2008.?


Oh, they've used it before then. And it generally works. Next year's election possibilities from the GOP thus far are just a collection of people using the media attention to further their own brand. Palin, Trump, Huckabee. Mitt's the only serious one so far, and I doubt he really expects to win. He's John Kerry, I'm telling you. Start looking for who's the likely candidate for 2016.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
I am saying it is not politically expedient for them to win the WH in 2012. Mit will likely get the nomination, and lose epically. If the GOP lose in 2012 they can basically assure a landslide victory in 2016, which is their aim. The economy s in the tank and will not get better for years. Why woul they want a prominent leadership role that wold have to take responsibility for that problem? Better to blame the dems.


Wow. Something I half agree with you over. Although I know you do believe in the partisan myth, which is the half we wont agree on.

I do agree though that the Republicans are not really out to win this election. Its supposed to be handed to Obama again. As it was in 2008. McCain/Palin was a deliberately losing ticket, and even McCain knew it. Its why he looked so weird and pissed off and constipated for the whole campaign, and relieved in his concession speech. He really wanted to win and they made him throw the game, and he hated it.

Our political system is totally rigged, like the WWF. The Dems are being used to push in domestic policies the Democratic voters would scream bloody murder over if the Republicans tried it. Holding people in jail for life, more Patriot Act and more wars. They all get their funding from the same people. Its just a drama for our sake.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   
no way in hell will i ever vote for romney

romney care being the number 1 issue

and his wishy washy stance on gun control.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Not to mention his statement today admitting carbon emissions contribute to the rising temperature of the planet. Doesn't he know the way to pander to the far right is to blame everything on Obama?

Just re-affirms my oft-repeated observation that Mittens is the GOP's John Kerry--A sacrificial lamb not meant to actually win.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by incrediblelousminds
 




Not to mention his statement today admitting carbon emissions contribute to the rising temperature of the planet. Doesn't he know the way to pander to the far right is to blame everything on Obama?


Maybe he doesn't want to pander to the far right? The important thing is his stance on cap and trade.

And he doesn't need to blame everything on Obama, although that is so very easy to do. Boy Blunder manages to shoot himself in the foot on a daily basis.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas


The important thing is his stance on cap and trade.


Which one? When he supported it or when he flip flopped a few years later and reversed his opinion entirely?

www.boston.com...

blogs.forbes.com...



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 10:16 PM
link   
Mitt Romney enters the "race".
Doesn't it seem like it is not really a "race"?
Why do they call it a race?

Mitt Romney....
Who is "Mitt Romney"? Why is it that we have heard of Mitt Romney? Why are we supposed to care about Mitt Romney?
Who is Mitt Romney?

So, let me get this right...."Mitt" enters a "race"...which is not really a race, it is a popularity contest, and the competitor with the most financial support has the inside track...with steroids.
Some race.

And, this is for "President", right?
Dictator.
So, Mitt is competing for dictator.
So we have to figure out if we want Mitt Romney as dictator?

So, again. WHO is Mitt Romney? And would he make a good dictator?



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by incrediblelousminds
 


If a man cannot mature and revise his opinions, then I don't want him. He is too set in his ways and intolerant to be an intelligent leader.

And if you choose to portray that as a character flaw instead of a sign of maturity, then I can't help you.

I gleaned this from your links:


To be fair, while Romney appears to be waffling on the science behind climate change, he has no problem advocating pro-climate initiatives as long as he can highlight their economic benefits. Case in point: During a 2007 debate in Des Moines, Romney said, “Confronting climate change is going to help our economy because we’re going to invest in new technologies to get ourselves off of foreign oil, and as we get ourselves off of foreign oil, we also dramatically reduce our CO2 emissions. That’s good for the environment; it’s also good for our economy. Because $300 [billion] to $400 billion worth of oil a year from other people who use it against us, that’s bad for our economy; it’s also bad for the environment.”



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by mishigas
 


No. I was just asking you to clarify which stance of his on Cap and Trade was "important" in your mind, as your previously stated. Is it his stance FOR, or his stance AGAINST?

You still haven't done that.






top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join