Conservatives who don't care about abortion

In regard to the little dots, I had second thoughts about what I typed. If I typed what I thought about your character, I would probably be banned. I have learned lots from this board, and a back and forth with you is not worth loss of the priviledge.

Not only will future quotes prove your support for the IRS and Romney, it will show a general pattern of degrading other members. It also will show a pattern of being clueless about pretty much any subject that appears.

 

What posts have you already provided that show ANY support for the IRS or Romney?

 

We have been over this ad nauseum, but as stated several times in a post, my guess is I paid more taxes per year than your gross income. As I stated before, I have paid federal, state, county, and city income taxes on time and in full for well over 45 years. Now, as is your usual pattern, what does that have to do with the documented cases of IRS abuses of American citizens? No, I do not support any governmental agency abusing power. As usual, your feeble attempt to mix apples and oranges to promote your vague, not informed goals results in one glaring conclusion, you need to learn the basics of history, government and politics, and not just call names.

In regard to support for Romney, which is only to answer your question, I have pointed out why I will not vote for him, theology of the Mormon Church, stance on abortion, gay rights, gun control, and government run health care, and a general pattern of deception. Several threads were also created to explain how Catholics and Mormons differ on their treatment of the status of Jesus Christ. Also, a thread was started to explain why I thought an endorsement of Santorum for Romney over four years ago was a mute point.

I do not expect you or anyone else to agree or disagree with me, but I do expect a minimal level of understanding to converse back and forth in a reasonable manner. I do not have any like or dislike for a particular group, party, or organization. I try and study the issues and respond on what I think is best for the country overall. There are several on the board that would vote Democrat if Adolf Hitler was the nominee, and several who would vote Republican if Satan was the nominee. That is the mindset I try and stay away from. I stay away from any mindset that associates either party with God.

As far as you equating how the Catholics and Mormons treat Jesus Christ, or as another poster called Santorum a "Mary worshipper," yes, that is not how I believe, and sure it is not how you believe. However, the common goal started out being defeating Obama in 2012. In the end, we, because of the mindset of the Republican Party, are presented with four choices. The goal was the defeat of Obama. Now, Gingrich, if he had a little less moral baggage in his past, and a little more kindness in his speeches, might have done the best. He is to be given credit for the 1994 Republican take over of the House, and his part in balancing the budget. Ironic as it was, he and Clinton came as close as anyone in recent history. He only won two primaries, and lost some he should have won like Mississippi, Alabama, etc. In the ones he lost, some had single digits. The overall conclusion about Gingrich is that he did not have a chance. Paul, who I probably admired the most amongst the four, has a small but deeply committed group of voters. He is the kind of person who would possibly be a strong third party, but had no chance at the Republican nomination. Many disagree, but I think his ideas about the FED and income taxes are at least worth a consideration.

So that leaves us basically with Romney and Santorum. This is the only two choices left minus not voting or voting third party. Both have problems. Yes, Santorum did endorse Romney over McCain in 2008, and that is one factor I considered. To me, the treatment of Jesus Christ by their faiths was glaring. It is a given Baptists and Catholics do not agree on much. We believe in salvation by faith with no works. We have no middle men between us and the Lord except Jesus Christ, and could go on and on, but this is not a theology thread. However, when compared to Mormonism, the person of Jesus Christ from a Catholic prespective is much closer to ours. Our common bond with the Catholics is that we believe Jesus Christ is God, is our Savior in the sense that God sacrificed Himself for us, and that Jesus Christ is not a created being, but has been here from eternity past, as best as our mnds can understand the concept. Also, we believe God the Father is not a created being, that He has the same status as Jesus Christ. Mormons believe that God the Father periodically recreates Himself. Jesus Christ is considered a created being on the same level as Lucifer or Gabriel.

Turning to the records of the men vs the speeches, the differences between Romney and Santorum is glaring. Santorum in the past has made isolated remarks about support of gay rights and funding of abortion. However, his pro life and pro family values support has been much more consistant than Romney. Romneys actions while governor actually affected these issues. Even before he enacted or help enact funding for abortion along with the Massachussetts legislature, he emphasized his support for abortion and gay rights while running for Senator against Ted Kennedy. Without repeating all the links and threads that have been posted many times, it paints a picture of not caring about issues one way or the other, but of saying what is necessary to win the office.

So, my question to you in all of your posts is this, what is your purpose in not agreeing or belittling those who oppose Romney or support Santorum? What are you trying to accomplish? Who is it from the choices given that you wish to be elected? The answer is that you have no idea.

 

Perhaps you have a reading comprehension problem.

I have never accused you of supporting the IRS, of being an IRS apologist, or of excusing IRS abuse of citizens.

You however have accused me of those things repeatedly.

And when asked to provide one single post where I have ever posted anything even remotely close to your mischaracterizations - instead of providing your evidence - you simply repeat your fabrications.

You have not explained why someone considering a vote for Romeny equals low morals and selling their soul...

While Santorums endorsement of Romney for Presidential nominee does not.

And now we have a new fabrication!!!!!:laugh:

I never - not once - not ever - posted anything on the Board equating Catholics and Mormons on any level - let alone how each treat Jesus.

I simply pointed out to you that just as you classify Mormons as a cult and not Christian - so do some others classify Catholics as a cult and not Christian. And in that very sentence also said that those beliefs about Catholics are not shared by me.

You are sorely confused - you are aware that several people post on the board and that you are not talking to just one person here aren't you?

There is that reading comprehension problem again...

I do not belittle someone who opposes Romney.

I do not belittle someone who supports Santorum.

I am merely trying - without success - to get you to admit that you sent months and countless posts accusing others - many many others - of having low morals and of selling their soul - simply because they did not immediately without question or consideration - jump on your Romney is an evil, pro abortion, pro gay marriage, Mormon, cult member, denier of Christ.

All the while touting Santorum - who as it turns out previously endorsed Ronmey !!!!

Why do you not qualify Santorum's morals as low - as you did for so many on the Board?

Why do you not accuse Santorum of selling his soul?

Was Romney not a Mormon when Santorum endorsed him?

Was Romeny not a cult member when Santorum endorsed him?

Was Romey not pro-abortion when Santorum endorsed him?

Was Romney not pro-gay marriage when Santorum endorsed him?

So if someone who considers voting for Romney has low morals and has sold his soul...

What does that mean for someone who endorses someone who endorsed Romeny?

BTW - you owe a whole lot of people on the board the same two apologies...

Say, "I am sorry for accusing you of having low morals and for saying that you sold your soul. That was wrong and I will try not to do it again."

Say, "I am sorry for accusing you of saying things that you never said. That was wrong and I will try not to do it again."

 

One thing that may be true, I never considered. Maybe you are playing devil's advocate, and are opposing Romney just to create an argument. Reading your posts to others gives me the impression we are not that far apart on political theory. I stated that my posts on Romney had stopped because it is very hard to maintain an objective view of him in light of his actions on abortion and gay rights in the past along with his theology.

It is really hard to size up the man in any other fashion except as an instrument to defeat Obama. I suppose it comes down to a judgement as to whether his election would make things any better. I can understand the difference of opinion since Romney is the only choice left. At the same time, maybe you can understand what that would actually mean in the long term.

 

No, I just believe in standing up for truth.

Someone who is considering voting for Roomney as a vote against Obama does not have low morals and is not selling their soul. Thats all.

We are fairly close in our political views.

I don't care for Romney - nor did I care for any of the other primary candidates.

I don't think that any Presidential hopeful has held my interest since Reagan and I think that even he blew his opportunity. He should have held a stronger stance against Federal spending.

In that it will probably come down to Obama/Romney I am not planning on casting a vote for President this time.

I have worked to insolate the lives of myself and my family from the whims of politicians in Washington and Lansing (our State capital) so what they do doesn't matter a whole lot - especially since there is very little tht I can do about it.

Besides, if an astroid were to strike Washington and wipe out every single Federal politician alive today, the next generation of them would probably be no better or of no more use than they anyway.

 

My "conservative" (more like constitutional libertarianism) is not dependent on modern secular "conservatism," which seems to be now just another flavor of big government cronyism. I am an anti-theonomist, so I cannot empathize with "conservatives" who want to enforce their morality (that is beyond punishing acts of aggression) through secular government.

However, abortion is a huge issue with me, and my wife, who is an R.N., volunteers at a crisis pregnancy center. The issue hits home with us, and neither of us will vote for someone who disregards what unmistakably is life. If you do not protect life, you have no basis for liberty. Whatever is truly equitable for punishing murder should also be applied to taking the life of an unborn child willfully.

Someone who is "conservative," but disregards the abortion issue needs to take a second look at the issue learn how to be consistent. I can also care less about secular, trash-talking, big government "conservatism" from the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, and what-not fans. If you let non-Christian media icons define your Christian beliefs, you need to turn off the media and spend more time studying your Bible.

 

I do not know a thing about Michigan politics, except that I have a sister that lives in a town called Ellsworth, which is somewhere north of Traverse City. She said the state is essentially divided into liberal and conservative along an east-west line somewhere.

Our state (Kentucky) is basically conservative, with pockets of Democrats in state and local elections, who are conservative. Our state tends to vote Republican in Presidential and Congressional elections. The only exception has been that Carter carried it the first time he ran, and Clinton both times, but as of late, Bush carried it twice, and McCain won 58% of the vote. This year, with the strong evangelical vote, it is a little more unclear.