Forums | MacLife

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Hank Rearden wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Oh, fun!

http://www.buchanan4pres2008.org/

I'm asking for the mug for Christmas:

http://images.cafepress.com/product/723 … _Front.jpg

Does mental illness run in your family or is it just you?

C'mon, admit it.  You want the mug too! 

Chickenhawk wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Oh, fun!

http://www.buchanan4pres2008.org/

You know, compared to bush (or rudy for that matter) buchanan isn't that bad.

::shudders::

It's a sad state for the GOP when someone can make a statement like that.

Hank Rearden wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Hank Rearden wrote:

I'm asking for the mug for Christmas:

http://images.cafepress.com/product/723 … _Front.jpg

Does mental illness run in your family or is it just you?

C'mon, admit it.  You want the mug too! 

Well ... okay, but only as a gag. Though my Jamaican and Jewish relatives wouldn't be too thrilled.

Actually, you know what, I think I am going to get that mug for my dad for chanukah.

El Light Borus wrote:

Hell with Rudy, McCain, and Buchanan. I really, really want to see Mitt Romney clinch the nomination.

Mister Romney is a Mormon, which many see as an insurmountable obstacle.

But maybe if Eliot Spitzer would run for the Democrats, it would even out, and cause some Washington talking heads to explode.

El Light Borus wrote:

JakeTheTall wrote:

Mister Romney is a Mormon, which many see as an insurmountable obstacle.

But maybe if Eliot Spitzer would run for the Democrats, it would even out, and cause some Washington talking heads to explode.

I know, but they said the same thing about Catholics right up until Kennedy was elected. I think the southern fundies would scream and wail, but wind up swallowing the bitter pill and voting for the same old party as Romney would be closer to their ideals than the Democrat candidate.

These days Mormons are being seen by the Dominionist types that are working on getting their hands on the US government as fine and dandy.  Certainly they differ quite radically in doctrine, etc.  But the LDS leadership has been trying to mainstream the church, with great success, over the past while and the "moral" "majority" Domioninsts care less about WHO is in their fold than that those in their fold will do what they want them to do.

The LDS leadership is big on the type of morality legislation that the Domionists love (I mean, really, take a trip to Utah sometime).

If the Dominionists are happy taking on Catholics, Pentecostals, and Evangelicals... Mormons will fit nicely too.  The tent is pretty big.

All they need to do is to convince the current tent sitters that Mormons are OK.  And, if Dobson says that they're OK, then they're OK to the masses in the tent.

Just you watch!  There are actually indications right now that things are going this way anyhow.

The more I think about it, the more I think Rudy's positioning himself to be the VP candidate.  Unless he's totally full of himself, he must be aware of two shortcomings he has that, put together, prove fatal: He's far too socially liberal for the conservatives, and he has no experience at the federal level (so far as I know), notably including foreign policy.  But as VP, he adds a little "post-9/11 leadership" gleam to the ticket and makes it a bit more palatable to liberals.

Last edited by charon (2006-11-16 3:53 pm)

El Light Borus wrote:

Romney is not a dominionist. Just take a look at his record. He's grudgingly against banning abortion and killed the Sunday ban on liquor in his state, something very un-Utah. There may be some asshats in Utah (who I like to call Utards), but that's why the phrase "Utah Mormon" is kicked around. Romney isn't one of them. The LDS church itself rarely takes an official stand on any piece of legislation, although a lot of members themselves will.

Is Romney noble enough NOT to use the Dominionist tent to get himself into the White House, given the opportunity?

El Light Borus wrote:

Hank Rearden wrote:

Is Romney noble enough NOT to use the Dominionist tent to get himself into the White House, given the opportunity?

Probably not. You have to get all the voters you can in politics. I'd think he might say just enough to get their votes. Then again, who else would they vote for that would actually have a chance? Not a Democrat, because said candidate would not doubt be much further from their ideals.

The "moral" "majority" either votes FOR a candidate or they stay home and LET the other candidate win.  This was Pat Robertson's big discovery, which has gotten us to where we are now.