Ron Paul sitting at 2nd in GOP in Utah

[libertyfriend]

Just one more thought about Romney. Many Mormons support Romney because they think if he is elected it will help the church to get mainstream acceptance or they assume he will be a more virtuous leader than a non-Mormon. His record as a governor proved he's simply a regular politician, no more virtuous than the average government official. I not only disagree with most of his platform but I really hope he doesn't become president because he is LDS.

Think about it, his neoconservative policies will likely aid in the continued destruction of the nation. Many in the country will blame the church and its members, and this will likely end up being the reason the rest of us end up having to flee to the mountains. (I'm only slightly kidding here.) We probably don't have to worry about it though because he likely won't win too many other states besides maybe Massachusetts, Utah, Idaho, and possibly Arizona.

[ithink]

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.

No not to "dogmatize", waterofmimir, but it is a clue. Beware lest you fall into the same category as the creators of the INDEX of the first printing of our most recent Standard Works, which originally included absolutely no references to money, wealth, or profit, despite many scriptural references to these topics. Press me on this and I will dig out the exact missing topics for you. Needless to say, this strange and interesting (and accidental?) error has since been corrected, as I'm sure you will be too when you complete your reading as I've listed above. If you think this too much, you may, but on this forum I have come to appreciate more than an objection followed by the word "silly". I did not come to my conclusions sitting in front of this computer and this keyboard this night. Where is the meat and substance of your opinion waterofmimir that I can carefully consider?

In addition, we are all well aware that the plates were hard to engrave upon. That being the case, then why would that passage not only be included at least once, but twice when abridged by Mormon if it was just a silly listing of the Nephite money system?

Finally, I was merely pointing out that others often use that passage to add credence to their support for a gold standard, but if you think it silly, then let us all discount it either for or against anything at all, and consider the mistake that Mormon made in going to the trouble of including that lengthy passage all for nothing!

ithink

[AussieOi]

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 STRONGLY object to what this man says. Mitt Romney should NOT be excommunicated from the LDS church for his belief in Abortion and for the gay marriage stuff.

Beliefs are just that, opinions.

Rather, Mitt should be excommunicated from the LDS church for his VOTING RECORD on Abortion and for the gay marriage stuff.

Well, maybe not. But thankfully, what this Mitt guy says, thinks, believes or does, doesn't effect me or the reality of the gospel.

[Proud 2b Peculiar]

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?

We could stop giving them the benefits that bring them here in the first place.

Free education, free food, free medical, free free free.....

We could enforce the law and send them back too....

Pretty soon these cuts will have to be made anyway.. we're broke.

[AussieOi]

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.

well, i was kicking myself too much reading this, i had to reply before i read on to see the replies.

here's a couple of thoughts. do i eat you alive, or should i leave it to others. i am sure you are- well, i hope you are well meaning. i have this gnawing fear you are just another mitt romney troll that is infecting bulletin boards and forums, pushing the "he;s not perfect but he is a strong economic manager and has the credentials and know how and can bring the party together, and ron paul yeah i like him but come on he wont win so lets get behind this mormon who is good"

so perhaps you can tell us if you were on one of those BYU buses that went to the primaries, and are you a plant?

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

nice middle ground construct

But here's why I'll take Romney over Paul: Romney actually lives in the real world.

wake up mate, neither do we. you are LDS I assume. Did you leave Utah for your mission? Dorothy? Romney actually lives in the real world eh? Hmm, this would be the real world that is totally and absolutely devoid of love, humanity, economic reality, key words, debt, fear, policestate, derivatives, cluster bombs, war, blood, horror, 30,000 children dying a day, 3rd world misery, 1000 US military bases globally, bankrupt government.

yeah, i'd prefer Ron Paul. Romney isn't going to change any of that in a hurry i am sure.

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.

ANY? hmm. lets just say what you have at the moment is not working, fiat money = inflation = theft. CHH would love you. You prefer to worship the beast perhaps?

It also annoys me how Ron Paul picks and chooses among quotes from the Founders that he can dogmatize on.

Yeah, thats a killer, especially when they were right or onto an important point eh

By the way, been to general conference lately?

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.

I don't know if it is that cut and dried. The way I see it- from Oz, is that he is just trying to reinvigorate the position as defended and espoused by the US constitution, as distinct from what one founder said about it. what would you prefer? Mitt and his I'd ask a lawyer, or Ron and his "Adams- who helped write the thing, said no cruel and unusual punishments" Would you prefer he quote Gonzales, or Bybee, or Adams?

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.

Yes it is.

What he doesn't realize is that responsibility and fault are two separate things.

Yeah, your right, he doesn't know that responsibility and fault are two separate things. Grow up mate. They guy has been in congress how long? they all know.

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.

well this now is propoganda. kind of like sending more money to chase more money. or sending more people to die so the lives lost are worth it. It is NOT your responsibility to help Iraq reach stability before you leave. There are too many false/ measures anyway. and what, you stay how long just ot make sure? and then do you come back in if they have rigged elections and a civil war 2 years later? Any thoughts on what do the Iraqi people want in this?

2 wrongs dont make a right. how about the US leaves, and you send them money in lieu.

All this is irrelevent. I'll leave it for you to stumble upon the quote by one of our prophets which specifically addresses nation building. Thats says it all. US, out, Iraq, Now.

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.

the best lukewarm puppet money can buy perhaps?

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.

this is where I believe you are reading off of a Mitt for President talking point circular. It smacks of the typical put downs the machine writes up to disseminate. lets look at it beyond the superficiality of it.

>>>>>>>Paul, on the other hand, (as in Mitt is not)

>>>>>>is a delusional (by whose reckoning? Yours?)

>>>>>>>idealist (again by whose reckoning. Yours. How old are you? 21? 22? You know enough to know which idealists are right and which are delusional? You are one smart guy. They teach you that at BYU?)

>>>>>>>who, though surely pushing for some good things, well whats it going to be? You tell me he is delusional, and an idealist, and he will go from blunder to blunder, and is volatile, but is surely pushing for good things. So it is the ends or the means you don't like here? Smacks of the bridge that campaign teams incorporate into daily talking points for the rank and filers to sell.

>>>>>>>would also make one huge blunder after another. (says who? blunder is polito-speak. Did you determine this for yourself or are you repeating something you heard a respected commentator say? As against Romney who is sure not to make any mistakes perhaps?)


>>>>>>>He's simply volatile. Volatile. I love that word. I sell Bonds and Equities for a living. Wow, we know something about volatility this month. I don't see Ron Paul and volatile in the same sentence. I tend to see he has a consistent voting record. I tend to see that his voting record reflects what I would expect a constitutionalist would vote for. Maybe as against the "status quo" he is "volatile". But then if we are measuring someone against such a status quo, we run the risk of having CHH send us some emails that will let us know in no uncertain terms that wanting that kind of stability is a fair measure that you have sold your soul to Satan for the spoils.

[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 STRONGLY object to what this man says. Mitt Romney should NOT be excommunicated from the LDS church for his belief in Abortion and for the gay marriage stuff.

Beliefs are just that, opinions.

Rather, Mitt should be excommunicated from the LDS church for his VOTING RECORD on Abortion and for the gay marriage stuff.

Well, maybe not. But thankfully, what this Mitt guy says, thinks, believes or does, doesn't effect me or the reality of the gospel.

Nope, not one iota.

[Lamanite Descendant]

Sorry mate, this post was too much. This kind of babble may work elsewhere but not here.

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

So you're a reasonable guy...

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

...and you have some good reason for deciding this.

Romney actually lives in the real world.

so ron paul doesnt live in the real world. well if the real world is the stuffed up situation we live in, Babylon, then yeah youre probably right about mitt.

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.

Well thats just false. Any means every and I doubt you know that every economist believes this. Do you even understand why or are you just repeating someone else line?

It also annoys me how Ron Paul picks and chooses among quotes from the Founders that he can dogmatize on.

So your annoyed.... Yes, he tends to say things that annoy the enemy.

For instance, he will often quote Thomas Jefferson as the all-in-all of our "founding principles"

your judgment.

....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.

he is not a Jefferson clone. Besides why are you attacking this man? Its not really the man that most people are supporting, its the message, the principle. He's just a vehicle for these principles. If you search hard enough Im sure youll find some dirt on him, everyone has some, Im sure you do too. Much of the politicians work to increase them selves by putting down those around them. This results in a negative net gain of increase for all parties involved. This is how satan works, lower those around you to gain the illusion that you have become greater.

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.

this means nothing.

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.

Yes it is 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.

If i invade my neighbours house and kill their father, is it my responsibility to stay there until the mother can perform the fathers duties? Do I assume the role of the father I killed?

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.

by keeping us in the REAL world? the status quo? no thanks

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.

Why? what are your reasons for saying this? This is just unfounded babble

He's simply volatile.

RP has proven himself to be the opposite of volatile, although his plans will be volatile to the people that benefit from the mess we are in today so theres some truth in what you said from a certain perspective, its just I dont like your perspective.

Mate are you getting paid to campaign for him here? You might be better off taking your act to BYU where they give standing ovations to war lords.

[Steve Clark]

You blokes from Aussie are alright in my book.

For anyone who hasn't, please follow the link in Mimir's sig. I hope what he presents there is true of him, but then I have a hard time reconciling what is said on http://www.patriotscreed.com with what Mimir is saying.

Mimir, take a look at your own website again...

As a patriot, I pledge my life to this ideal.

This is what it's all about. Following the Mitt or the status quo isn't pledging your life to an ideal, it's selling out. We have such a great opportunity in this election to put our beliefs into action by supporting a truly PRINCIPLED candidate. Like what has been said before, he's not a perfect man, but he is consistent in voting his conscience.

I have found generally that people who are apposed to the ideals that Dr. Paul lays down are afraid of, or at least do not understand the foundations of liberty. Liberty is not a right to a great life, is the right to make a great life. It is being a free agent to oneself, not a subject to a secular order. There is no such thing as a right to health care, or a right to have shelter. You have the rights given by God to chose for yourself what you will become and how you will use your resources. We are held accountable to what we chose to do.

This has always been the plan of our Father, and it is these principles upon which this country was founded and upon which Dr. Paul bases his political ideals. He is for liberty and agency. Why anyone would not want these things is beyond me, but I know that the war in heaven didn't end at the beginning of this world. We are still fighting the battle of forced submission against free agency. Which side are we on?

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

Bravo Lamanite Descendant!

I would like to see just one principle that the founders all agreed on. There aren't many (if any) aside from the compromise itself.

[ChelC]

I think it's okay for someone to consider the diplomatic qualities of a candidate. I actually don't consider Paul to be very diplomatic, but to me that's AOK. I think we need someone with more guts to stand for right and less backscratching in foreign lands. If it's not to you, then that's fine, but diplomacy should never outweigh content, be careful that you appreciate the content of Mitt's message and not just that you can only stomach the mild salsa. Your call.

The biggest problem I have is the argument that we can't pull out in a day. I actually agree that where we've done harm we have an obligation to make it right, so long as we are wanted there that is. What I don't get is that if your biggest problem with Paul is this, and you gloss right over the rightness or wrongness of the war, then you are choosing a candidate who is doing something wrong to avoid consequence from correcting a wrong choice. If you think the war is right, then argue the rightness of the war, not in whether pulling out is realistic.

I happen to believe the war is wrong, and yet when we went in I thought it was right. Partly because it was misrepresented and partly because I had a horribly bent attitude about wars that seemed so abstract. So to me, we have a responsibility to repent for our wrongs there. To wish to avoid paying the piper by continuing an incorrect war until we win is just more sin to me. Think about that.

Please, if you prefer Mitt over Paul, let's argue the merits of the war because that is WAY more important. Let's argue why we would support someone who thinks torture is okay. These are the important moral issues at stake, and more important than speculating about which candidate will give us more gain and help avoid the consequence of our mistakes.

[CarpeDiemRedhead]

Hallelujah and Amen!

[Proud 2b Peculiar]

I think it's okay for someone to consider the diplomatic qualities of a candidate. I actually don't consider Paul to be very diplomatic, but to me that's AOK. I think we need someone with more guts to stand for right and less backscratching in foreign lands. If it's not to you, then that's fine, but diplomacy should never outweigh content, be careful that you appreciate the content of Mitt's message and not just that you can only stomach the mild salsa. Your call.

The biggest problem I have is the argument that we can't pull out in a day. I actually agree that where we've done harm we have an obligation to make it right, so long as we are wanted there that is. What I don't get is that if your biggest problem with Paul is this, and you gloss right over the rightness or wrongness of the war, then you are choosing a candidate who is doing something wrong to avoid consequence from correcting a wrong choice. If you think the war is right, then argue the rightness of the war, not in whether pulling out is realistic.

I happen to believe the war is wrong, and yet when we went in I thought it was right. Partly because it was misrepresented and partly because I had a horribly bent attitude about wars that seemed so abstract. So to me, we have a responsibility to repent for our wrongs there. To wish to avoid paying the piper by continuing an incorrect war until we win is just more sin to me. Think about that.

Please, if you prefer Mitt over Paul, let's argue the merits of the war because that is WAY more important. Let's argue why we would support someone who thinks torture is okay. These are the important moral issues at stake, and more important than speculating about which candidate will give us more gain and help avoid the consequence of our mistakes.

I was talking with someone online about this, and they are pro-war all the way saying we are still defending ourselves. Then they went on to ask me why I am not President..... LOL