Ron Paul sitting at 2nd in GOP in Utah

[Col. Flagg]

This is good news...

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/straw-poll-results/

Gee, I wonder who's 1st? It's too bad that most LDS people can't see through Mitt for what he really is. I'm not saying he's a bad man or anything like that, just wishy-washy and willing to say anything or change positions on subjects to garner more votes. IMHO, that is a man with little integrity because he hasn't held firm to his convictions and LDS principles and I especially despise him for saying that he isn't sure that anyone has talked to God since Moses. I wonder if he knows who restored the church?

[ChelC]

2nd with 5%?

[Col. Flagg]

I thought it was kind of strange too. Maybe Romney has the other 95% (don't put it past most Utahns to vote for Mitt simply because he is LDS).

[Col. Flagg]

I thought it was kind of strange too. Note also that the straw poll was taken back in June, '07.

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Feature- ... oNo=019804

Mitt Romney
1,042 (80.46%)

Ron Paul
70 (5.41%)

Rudy Giuliani
57 (4.40%)

John McCain
54 (4.17%)

Tom Tancredo
19 (1.47%)

Tommy Thompson
16 (1.24%)

Fred Thompson (write-in)
15 (1.16%)

Mike Huckabee
12 (0.93%)

Sam Brownback
8 (0.62%)

Stan Lockhart (write-in)** 1 (0.08%)

Newt Gingrich (write-in)
1
(0.08%)

11 total candidates

1,295

(100%)

[Col. Flagg]

Well, I was close. Come on Utah sheeple... wake up! If people were truly informed, it would be Paul with 80% and Romney with 5%.

[Proud 2b Peculiar]

There was a guy that came on my blog today and was pretty mad about Mitt.

He said that he should be excommunicated from the LDS church for his belief in Abortion and for the gay marriage stuff... this guy is not even LDS....

I said that I don't know about Mitt's standing, but he claims to have repented.. However, his current stances on things I still cannot support.

[watersofmimir]

I don't completely support any current candidate. There are, of course, things I don't like about Romney.

But here's why I'll take Romney over Paul:

Romney actually lives in the real world.

For instance, Romney doesn't preach about getting back on the gold standard as Paul does because, as ANY economist will tell you, it is utterly impossible.

It also annoys me how Ron Paul picks and chooses among quotes from the Founders that he can dogmatize on. For instance, he will often quote Thomas Jefferson as the all-in-all of our "founding principles" even if Alexander Hamilton or Benjamin Franklin made statements completely contrary to what Jefferson said. And he will just as easily ignore other statements that Jefferson obviously felt to be equally important--such as the idea that we should all be yeoman farmers who hoe our own crops by day and read philosophy by night.

The REAL founding statutes of America are those things that most of the founders would have agreed on, and not simply the things that Ron Paul and ONE founding father agree on.

Also, Ron Paul likes to say that we need to immediately pull out of Iraq because that whole fiasco is the Bush Administration's fault, and not the fault of the American People. But it's not that simple.

What he doesn't realize is that responsibility and fault are two separate things. Regardless of whose fault it is, it is still our responsibility as a nation to help Iraq reach a state of stability before we leave.

People say Romney is too much of a politician. And he is. But I would count on Romney to be the man who simply manages to refrain from causing any huge problems. Paul, on the other hand, is a delusional idealist who, though surely pushing for some good things, would also make one huge blunder after another. He's simply volatile.

[Bridgey]

It's sad you feel that way. The Lord said in the D&C somewhere that the Constution was inspired and from him.

wicked people will fight against it. Romney unfortunately doesn't support the constitution and with his ID card idea amongst some others is aiming to change or rather disregard it. I don't know if this makes him a wicked man, but I bet God is at minimum displeased with him for this.

Joseph Smith prophesied about the consitution hanging by a thread in the last days.

Ron Paul is the only man fighting for the constitution. Looking at his fruits of the past (especially vs those of Romney http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marr ... ey/record/ ), I believe that he is a strong Christian and is sent by God to the people of the USA at this time to give them a chance to vote in the righteousness over wickedness. If the people choose to disregard righteousness (defending the constitution), then I believe God will have no choice but to start pouring out his judgements on the America's.

By their fruits you shall know them.

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

For instance, Romney doesn't preach about getting back on the gold standard as Paul does because, as ANY economist will tell you, it is utterly impossible.

Actually that is entirely untrue. Many Von Mises, Austrian school of thought economists promote such policies.

Mish (Michael Shedlock) is my favorite economist (quoted frequently in the WSJ and elsewhere) and carried on Minyanville as well as his own site. He is a strong proponent of a return to the gold standard. It is entirely feasible. In fact when not manipulated it is one of the few systems with a good track record.

[watersofmimir]

I never said that having a gold standard is a bad idea. It's a very good idea--if you can do it. I mean, it obviously worked very well here for a long time.

But we are already past the point of no return in that regard. Though, ideally, we would be a lot better off if we had it, there is no way for us to do it now.

[watersofmimir]

Romney quite specifically said that the whole ID card thing would be ONLY for people coming from abroad to work in the United States, and NOT for people like you and me. And it is a very good idea, because it would ensure that migrant workers from Mexico would have to actually pay taxes like the rest of us.

[Proud 2b Peculiar]

Do you not know about Real ID that goes into effect in May? They are already doing it to US.

The Dept. of homeland screwitupity announced that already. So the 17 states that oppose it are not going to be able to partake of their spoils anymore, go into Federal Buildings, or Fly on an Air plane.

I live in one of those 17 opposing states! YEA!

You of course can voluntarily partake in the system by filing some paperwork if your state opposes it, so whatever....

What you support happening to someone else, you support happening to you.... In fact, Mitt is just making sure that the new people that come here get the Id Cards too.. have to be able to track all of us after all...

[HeirofNumenor]

Romney quite specifically said that the whole ID card thing would be ONLY for people coming from abroad to work in the United States, and NOT for people like you and me. And it is a very good idea, because it would ensure that migrant workers from Mexico would have to actually pay taxes like the rest of us.

Ever hear of the slippery slope? First we enforce something only on one segment of society, soon, someone else says what's good for the goose is good for the gander, because, well you never know what your neighbor may do...

Guliani announced his desire for a national ID card in the May 07 debate. LoveChrist pointed out how things are already being implemented, and the Utah DMV staffers admitted that they are ready to go with a biometric/GPS tracking chip in driver's licenses (Federal standards)...as soon as the state legislature funds it.

[Proud 2b Peculiar]

And Great Britain has already started spy chipping their newly released 'criminals'.

Right within their bodies.

What happens to one, happens to all.

If we are willing to take the rights of those who we 'perceive' as evil, how much easier is it to deny rights to all flesh?

We must not accept the least degree of unrighteousness, referring to what not to like about Mitt but still 'take him' over someone else. I refuse to accept any candidate whose history is questionable. That cannot stand up for the Proclamation to the world of the family, and to unravel that on a state level after knowing that, or to deny the sanctity of life, but wait.. he repented and turned around. May be so, however, he is still advised by a well known global lobbyist, and also gets advice from CFR members. And he published a paper through their magazine Foreign Affairs. That is what he is TODAY. And he may repent of that later, but I cannot vote for those that take us away from our nation and into a global one... never.

I think that your Creed is great, but you must live by it. If you support globalists, you do not.

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

Actually we could transition back to a gold standard, of course it would be painful for some, but has breaking that tie been any less painful? What was the US dollar worth in real terms when the fed was created? When the gold standard was repealed? What is it worth now? The cost and reckoning of which is about to be more painful than most any other period in world history in my opinion.

I actually think the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act was a good idea and I have heard proposals in recent days from unthinking economists advising a repeat. I too advise a repaet costly though it would be.

The problem is not that we have come too far to return to a gold standard, but that we have come too far to escape a painful day of reckoning under any policy.

[libertyfriend]

The REAL founding statutes of America are those things that most of the founders would have agreed on, and not simply the things that Ron Paul and ONE founding father agree on.

The founders did often have somewhat differing viewpoints about things. But their extensive discussion and debate led them to a consensus on the important issues. The Constitution is one very good example of that. Plus our own prophets repeatedly call it an inspired document.

So my concerns with Romney and most of the candidates (except Paul) is why not follow the Constitution? Why not even TRY to follow it? In my research I've found that Romney's positions conflict with the 1st, 4th, 6th, 7th and 8th Amendments, along with several of the main Articles of the Constitution, some of them already mentioned—such as the gold/silver standard, Iraq War (illegal according to the Constitution), etc. Plus I'm sure there's some that I'm missing.

We know that the principles of the gospel don't change, why would the principles of liberty and good government?

[No Touch]

Romney quite specifically said that the whole ID card thing would be ONLY for people coming from abroad to work in the United States, and NOT for people like you and me. And it is a very good idea, because it would ensure that migrant workers from Mexico would have to actually pay taxes like the rest of us.

That line is completely unrealistic. What about American-born (or naturalized citizen) Hispanics like me? How do immigration officers tell that I am citizen rather than an illegal with forged documents if this is the standard? And if you force me to do it, you have to do it to all Americans. The REAL ID will be for everyone, and you should wonder why they don't want to tell you that up front. Do some research on this subject.

[Proud 2b Peculiar]

WOW, is that a Jesus Coin? Welcome By the way.

[Steve Clark]

Mimir,

Thank you for bringing to light the real issues surrounding the political scene right now. I won't hesitate to mention my support for Ron Paul and my disdain for "the Mitt." I frequently hear the railings of my friends and other associates towards Ron Paul on such issues as honest money and getting rid of a whole mess of bureaucracy in Washington as well as bringing our troops home from the 4 corners of the earth.

The thing that amazes me is the lack of better alternatives provided by the other candidates. What is the Mitt's proposal to manage our run-away economy? How is the Mitt going to continue to fund our empire over seas? How does the Mitt feel about our GOD GIVEN RIGHTS!?! He supports (or supported, it's hard to use the correct tense when speaking on his stances) an "assault rifle" ban. This shows a clear misunderstanding of the Second Amendment. Only Congressman Paul has shown true understanding of the concept that the people must remain armed to oppose a suppressive government.

If where the Mitt lives is the "real world" then I propose it is past time to change that reality. This is the reason that we need a Ron Paul in office more than ever. Enough of the same old bull crap! Enough of the politicians! Let's get a statesman into the office already.

[ithink]

Actually watersofmimir, you are correct. We cannot go back to the gold standard, not us Canadians -- not anyone. We must have a fiat money system. If you don't immediately know what fiat is, then you have some homework ahead of you. You can start here: http://www.realityzone.com/banking.html

The folks at Jekyll Island did get part of it right when they insisted that they have a flexible money system. This was the right thing to do -- this is absolutely imperative to a modern economy. I repeat, this is mandatory. However, the mechanism of it's creation is the where it all goes bad.

Because of this, some will argue that a gold standard, or any standard based on intrinsic value is required. Some say that the Book of Mormon teaches a money system that is God approved, and is based on items of intrinsic value. However, you will also notice that the Nephite money system appears right in the midst of the discussion of the evil lawyers abusing the system for their gain. Folks, the Book of Mormon shows us this system (based on things with intrinsic value) not because it is good, but because it is inherently flawed.

The perpetrators of the current system try to deflect criticism of the current system in pointing out that governmental creation of money leads to runaway inflation. Too much money creation does lead to inflation, but too much money is only ever created when the mechanism which turns it out is flawed. It is a subtle difference, and one that escapes our attention most of the time.

Any money system can be abused, whether it is a gold standard or fiat. The question for any money system is, is it transparent? You yourselves have a system that has not been audited -- ever, and can you guess why? Ours is equally as bad, where we get most public funding from the private banks (97%) even though we have our own fiat money printing press -- the Bank of Canada. Either way, it's being abused.

The solution lies in the creation of only enough money ONLY to match the production of the economy -- no more and no less. To inflate the money supply by creating Canadian Bank Notes at the same rate of the production of the country is no inflation at all. And vice versa, to deflate the supply of money at the same rate the economy contracts naturally, is no deflation either, in the sense that the money in circulation still buys the same amount of goods.

The only system there is that comes close to solving this puzzle is the Social Credit system created by C. H. Douglas -- a Scottish engineer. This system requires that all be capitalists, like investors in a company. The basic pretense is that money comes into being in a very similar way it does now, except it's without the involvement of Mr. Pennybags (JP Morgan) and others like him. Money is the blood supply of the body economy. Without it, we all starve. With it we all prosper. And we collectively, deserve control of it through our hard work and ingenuity.

I've pondered money and the system for about 25 years now. I've studied it in depth for nearly a decade. This Social Credit system is the only one that will release us from bondage, aside from Consecration, which is not for the generally wicked wicked men that routinely populate our legislatures.

http://www.michaeljournal.org/plenty.htm

ithink

[watersofmimir]

On a slight tangent, I contend that the passage about money in the Book of Mormon was not intended to dogmatize on what type of currency/trade system is condoned by God. It is simply there so that we can know how much money Zeezrom was trying to use to bribe Amulek. Anyone who reads more into it than that is simply being silly.

[watersofmimir]

I would contend that the best way to deal with the illegal immigration problem is to make it impossible for employers to hire illegals. And how do we do that without THE CARD?

Should we just build THE WALL? Would that be cost-effective? Would it be effective at all?

I'm not trying to push any agenda. I'm just looking for viable answers, folks.

Side note:
My father feels that we should move most of our military training facilities to the border and let border patrol be part of the training.

What say you to that?

[a-train]

I still don't see why it is so impossible to use money with intrinsic value. The US lasted for more than a century and fought several wars including a civil war and WWI while on the Gold Standard. Why is it so impossible to use such a system now?

Deflation? Is deflation evil? I just can't imagine a reason for complaint as the cost of living actually goes down. I keep hearing people say how impossible it is to use an honest system. But nobody can demonstrate why.

I can quickly see the trouble in a fiat system, what is wrong with real money?

-a-train

[Stephen]

I don't completely support any current candidate. There are, of course, things I don't like about Romney.

But here's why I'll take Romney over Paul:

Romney actually lives in the real world.

For instance, Romney doesn't preach about getting back on the gold standard as Paul does because, as ANY economist will tell you, it is utterly impossible.

It also annoys me how Ron Paul picks and chooses among quotes from the Founders that he can dogmatize on. For instance, he will often quote Thomas Jefferson as the all-in-all of our "founding principles" even if Alexander Hamilton or Benjamin Franklin made statements completely contrary to what Jefferson said. And he will just as easily ignore other statements that Jefferson obviously felt to be equally important--such as the idea that we should all be yeoman farmers who hoe our own crops by day and read philosophy by night.

The REAL founding statutes of America are those things that most of the founders would have agreed on, and not simply the things that Ron Paul and ONE founding father agree on.

Also, Ron Paul likes to say that we need to immediately pull out of Iraq because that whole fiasco is the Bush Administration's fault, and not the fault of the American People. But it's not that simple.

What he doesn't realize is that responsibility and fault are two separate things. Regardless of whose fault it is, it is still our responsibility as a nation to help Iraq reach a state of stability before we leave.

People say Romney is too much of a politician. And he is. But I would count on Romney to be the man who simply manages to refrain from causing any huge problems. Paul, on the other hand, is a delusional idealist who, though surely pushing for some good things, would also make one huge blunder after another. He's simply volatile.

Your comments remind me of my friend from this thread...

http://www.latterdayconservative.com/fo ... php?t=1892

It sounds like you've been talking to the same people. If you read it you should read my response in mult-colors.

I don't doubt for a moment that a Ron Paul presidency would be volatile!! There would be a lot of really upset people when the dole stops! There would be a lot of people whose careers in gov't beauracracy would be forced to get another job. Getting us back to the constitution...away from this imperialist/socialist...progressively fascist system will be a rough road... The alternative is politicians talking about "change" and there will be change...for the worse! That is our history. The more that one studies economics...food supplies...transportation...natural disasters...the war machine...doctrines concerning the last days...pestilences...etc...etc...the more you are gripped with the grim reality that we stand on the precipice of some real disaster....and it wouldn't take much to push us reeling off of the edge!