. So what are we to do? We should go around them. We should sit down and figure out for ourselves.
Is Mitt Romney a flip-flopper? In the next two years, you will never see the media try to figure this out. You will just hear them use whatever names they can get to stick. So lets figure it out ourselves. Please help me compile all the reasons to agree or disagree that Mitt Romney is a flip-flopper. I will, unlike the media, present both sides.
http://myclob.pbwiki.com/flip-flop
I look forward to your comments, and will add whatever people tell me to add. I won't silence you, by ignoring your logic (like the media). I will silence you buy bringing up good reasons to disagree with you.
~ Mike
February, 6th 2007: Too Much Debate?
"Major candidates are complaining that too many states are planning too many debates too early."
What? Too many debates too early? That is the problem with modern politics. We don’t have enough debates, soon enough. Also, we don’t have the right type of debates.
No one wants to talk to each other; they would rather have their henchmen make 30 second TV commercials about each other. And the debates are not even real debates. They are just scripted formats for them to repeat their campaign slogans. It is a horse and pony show.
How do you tell when a politician is telling lies? His/her lips move. That is why we need to hook politicians onto lie detectors when they debate. If I was a politician I would wear a lie detector. Why should politicians have the right to lie to us? We have the technology to have them hooked up during a debate. You have to pass a lie detector test to go into the CIA, why not to become POTUS?
However, I wouldn’t just have a standard lie detector, I would hook the bio-feedback outputs up to the computer that runs the audio and lighting in the debate hall, so it plays atonal experimental academic music and an eerie light show when the candidate is lying.
This will allow honest politicians (like Romney) to REALLY communicate – to really give people a detailed picture of their emotional process. This will make politicians into rock stars. Watching them will be much more entertaining, and educational. Once this becomes mainstream we can start to follow leaders who really say what they believe. There is new cat scan technology that makes lie-detection fool proof. Even the threat of lie detectors will stop people like Hillary from going into politics: like the threat of radar guns stop people from speeding.
If referees in the Super Bowl can use instant replay to ensure that what happens in an un-important (in the big scheme of things) football game, than the people of the United States need technology to help us make the most important decision of the planet’s future: who should be the next POTUS.
This product would not be too difficult to make. If the dad in "Meet the Parents" could get a lie detector, I’m sure someone at one of these colleges could bring one by on the night of the debate.
At the very least we need to put the presidential candidates in some sort of "American Political Idle", or "Big Brother - 2008 President"... lock them up and see them duke it out for a week, not for an hour long debate.
Lincoln and Douglas had 7 debates. Each debate had this format: one candidate spoke for an hour and a half, then the other candidate spoke for two hours, and then the first candidate spoke for a half hour. The candidates alternated going first. That is 4 hours each debate, with 7 debates, and a total of 28 hours of debate, for just two candidates. If we only have 4 candidates for 2008, we will need a minimum of 56 hours of debate in order to have each candidate speak as much as Lincoln and Douglas. I will be suppried if there is 12 hours of debate, let alone (my miniumum of) 56. This was just for the Illinois senate seat. Our next election will determine the president of the most powerful country on the face of the planet, in a very difficult time. Much more complicated than 7 score and 9 years ago. The Baby Boomers will start to retire, the deficit will explode. We, as citizens, need to demand at least 56 hours of debate for the 2008 presidency, and everyone who wants to be president needs to show up for each debate. This is a Minimum. I think we also need lie detectors, and need to lock them all in the same building for a month straight, but that is just my opinion.
What do you think? What type of debate would you like to see? What kind of format should we use to determine the next president? What are your feelings about presidential debates? What could we do to improve them? Do you agree, that at a Minimum, we need to have 28 hours worth of debate between the candidates? Do we face more complex questions that Lincoln and Douglas faced when they were trying to be senators for Illinois?
~ Mike
January 29th, 2007: Die like men or live like dogs?
We gave the citizens of Iraq the right to die for their freedom, like Men and Women.
They have the right, to decide if they love their children more than they hate their neighbor.
Americans have had to learn how to accept responsibility for our lives. We had to learn how to be free men and women. We freed millions of Iraq's, and gave them their first breath of fresh air, as humans, as free people.
We are now fighting the zombies, who don't want to live in this century, that don't want to live a real life, that don't want to have children, that will become eunuchs for Osama.
We stirred up a hornets nest? Isn't it better to do that now, than when oil is $100 a barrel, or $200 dollars a barrel, and those that call America the great Satan, Saddam's children, sit on 1/2 the world's oil?
I would rather fight a free man, that has been convinced that America is his enemy, than let millions suffer in captivity from a dictator who promises to destroy us.
Let them choose their side, like men. We will be waiting with open arms to welcome them to the 21st century, or with a machine gun to send them to hell.
December 31st, 2006: The Boston Globe gets Religion? The Boston Globe doesn't get religion...
The Boston Globe tries to start a fight between Evangelicals and Mormons
"Recent polls have found that around 40 percent of Americans say they would not vote for a Mormon for president -- though nearly as many said they would have reservations voting for a Catholic in 1960, the year John F. Kennedy won the White House."
So can we once and for all put the issue behind us? The same number of people who said they wouldn't vote for a Mormon now, say they wouldn't have voted for a Catholic then, but they did once they got to know him.
The Boston Globe would like nothing more than to see Evangelicals and Mormons have a big fight over the next two years. That is why they are fascinated with contrasting Mormonism to Evangelical beliefs.
This article:
http://www.boston.com/news/education/k_12/articles/2006/12/31/imperfect_fit/
doesn't go into the religious differences so much as it tries to analyze the political difference.
It asserts: "In short, neither the Mitt Romney who ran for Senate in 1994 vowing to keep abortion safe and legal, nor the more recent "firmly pro-life" Romney, would be in the wrong according to the teachings of his church."
Neither Romney? They are the same Romney. Lord Byron said; "Opinions are made to be changed - or how is truth to be got at?" You say good morning to people on the internet, and they say, "You said good evening last night! Which is it going to be! You are a flip-floper." Romney was represented to represent Massachusetts. They are pro-choice. He declared a truce on this issue, and advanced other republican causes. Now Romney is trying to represent a group of people who are split over the issue. He is explaining what his policy will be now that he is representing a different set of people. At least that is my belief. His position changed over the stem cell debate.
read about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney#Abortion
and here
http://myclob.pbwiki.com/abortion
This might be upsetting to Evangelicals. They might think that the Mormon Church has no position on Abortion. This is not true. I think you can be ex-communicated from the Mormon Church for having an abortion, or encouraging your wife to have an abortion. So evangelicals and Mormons aren't so far apart on the issue. It’s just that the Mormon church doesn't tell you what your political position should be. And this is where I get mad. Not all Evangelicals believe that Government should be involved politically either. The article tries to paint Mormons as free thinking and all evangelicals as Dobson-order taking robots. This is not true, and it is the best way to get evangelicals mad at Mormons and Mitt. Evangelicals think for themselves. They don't need Dobson to think for them. This is one of the strengths of the Evangelical movement. They don't have a centralized individual whose job it is to interpret the will of God.
The article said, "Smith was an abolitionist, for one thing; and he argued for the communal ownership of property." Is this a surprise? Most religious leaders of course were abolitionist! Smith did not argue for the communal ownership of property. He, like all Christians, understood that the disciples of Christ "had all things common" but that those were special circumstances. But Mormons concluded, like other churches, that the world is not ready for it. This is a subtle way to tell evangelicals that we are communist, which couldn't be farther from the truth.
The article points out that Mormons are "almost as monolithically Republican as African-Americans are Democratic. They tend on most major issues to be culturally and economically conservative, and in the past few presidential elections 80 to 90 percent of Mormons have voted for the Republican candidate."
"It is this alignment that Romney has tried to exploit in courting his party's vital conservative Christian bloc. He has emphasized his opposition to embryonic stem-cell research, and sought to distance himself from earlier statements that suggested moderate views on same-sex marriage and abortion. According to Gregory Rodriguez, a political analyst at the New America Foundation, Romney has even called himself an "evangelical Mormon."' Now here is some red meat for democrats, as for why they shouldn't like Mormons. I like the use of the word “exploit”. When democrats court people that tend to agree with them, does the Boston Globe use the world “exploit”.
Has anyone heard Romney call himself an "evangelical Mormon"? Were did he get this?
"Indeed, when Romney and others talk about his Mormonism in the context of the coming campaign, the assumption is that, despite the theological differences between LDS and evangelicals, politically the two groups are on the same page."
"But while few dispute the social conservativism of the LDS church and its members, it is also true that on some key issues they don't fall neatly into line with the religious right's priorities."
Great. Tell evangelicals that we are all moderates. This is divisive because it is an over simplification and it is not true. We are moderates in the same sense that evangelicals are moderates. Some of us are and some of us are not.
I think a lot of Mormons and evangelicals miss-interpret the lesson learned from the following scripture:
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/rev/3/16#16
I mean there are scriptures that say that it is better to be hot or cold than lukewarm, but I think that has to do with standing up for what is right, with specific issues. I don't think that means that one party is always right, or that extremism is good. One party does not own God and his causes, and Jesus taught against bad extremism. The apostles gave their lives for the truth. They were good extreme. But they didn't the lives of others for the truth. They didn't kill. They didn't lie, to move the cause forward. They didn't oversimplify issues. The need to be hot or cold does not mean the ends justify the means. I mean I think Romney is respectful. I don't think you have to be full of hatred to democrats, just to prove that you are a good republican. This is one of Romney’s strengths but it is turned into a weakness when people use labels. You can stand for truth without oversimplifying or demonizing your enemies or their position. You can still have strong convictions and be what some people call a moderate.
This is a must read from George Washing for those who advocate party (or faction) extremism
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/washing.htm
George Washington says, “…They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.”
“It is, indeed, little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property.”
“I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.”
“This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.”
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.”
But I digress.
The article asserts that Mormons are more moderate than evangelicals, which is an oversimplification and not true. Evangelicals are no more exactly like each other than Mormons.
This is where I think I need to put in some of my criticisms for the news. Instead of telling people that they need to attend an evangelical church or Mormon church in order to explain what is going on, they make it sound like they have all the answers. All you need to know about Mormons and Evangelicals can be found in the Boston Globe. It’s not their fault, it is the nature of journalism to suck. They don’t tell you to go to an encyclopedia or talk to an evangelical. They just want you reading their adds.
Here are some of my favorite anti-journalism quotes.
People everywhere confuse what they read in newspapers with news. - AJ Liebling
All successful newspapers are ceaselessly querulous and bellicose. They never defend anyone or anything if they can help it; if the job is forced on them, they tackle it by denouncing someone or something else.- HL Mencken
If you believe everything you read, better not read. - Japanese Proverb
And the grand daddy of them all that sums up my point is this:
- "To read a newspaper is to refrain from reading something worthwhile. The first discipline of education must therefore be to refuse resolutely to feed the mind with canned chatter".
That is my point. Reading the Boston Globe is worse than reading “canned chatter” it is reading partisan, party, (faction), canned chatter. It purports to tell you about the differences between Mormonism and Evangelicals, but you would be much better served going to an encyclopedia unless you want to be deceived. You would much better be served going to one of their churches. You would much better be served talking to or forming a friendship with members of these communities. Or go here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicals
or here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints
The canned chatter that I speak of is this guy from the Boston Globe who tries to tell us about Mormons and Evangelicals but has probably never stepped foot inside of a Mormon or Evangelical church, let alone read the Bible. Maybe he has been to these churches and read the Bible, but that is not my point. The point is he is saying you can understand these communities by reading his article, without going to the church or reading anything else. I guess its not his fault. It’s not his job to educate people. But maybe it is. When he is trying to tell the difference between Mormons and Evangelicals shouldn’t he link to additional information? Shouldn’t he acknowledge that he is making drastic over simplifications and mischaracterizations? People who read this article will have a misconception of what it is to be Mormon and Evangelical.
Back to the article.
He says, “”But while few dispute the social conservativism of the LDS church and its members, it is also true that on some key issues they don't fall neatly into line with the religious right's priorities.” Well no du! Mormons don’t all agree with each other. Evangelicals don’t all agree with each other. Only journalist think they can explain the world so that it all “falls neatly into line” with each other.
Continuing, “To be sure, Mormons and conservative Christians, both Catholic and evangelical, are on the same side of two of the bitterest culture-war battles being fought today, over gay marriage and abortion. On others, though -- stem-cell research, the teaching of evolution in schools, public funding for religion, and end-of-life care -- the LDS church is harder to pin down. In part this is due to the church's unique theology, but it may also derive from Mormonism's early history as a marginal sect suspicious of (and suspected by) the US government. Mormons today are among the nation's most patriotic groups, but many retain a sharp sense of their minority status.
“Romney himself has been quick to point out that he is not running as a representative of his religion. And like John F. Kennedy, he has demonstrated over the years a certain independence from his church. And yet, lost in the discussion of Romney and Mormonism is that, unlike Kennedy, Romney's stances on key issues dear to the religious right may actually make him more conservative than his own church.”
How can he say Romney is more conservative than his own church? The Mormon church is silent on 99% of political issues, and so Romney is both more conservative and more liberal than a church that does not take political stances. This is the problem with media. They have the usefulness of cheerleaders. Recently they got all bent out of shape, and pronounced that more people died in Iraq than on September 11th, as though this was supposed to be significant. These people did not mention any of the statistics from this site:
http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/other/stats/warcost.htm
Neither do they mention the fact that 2,335 servicemen died at Pearl Harbor but 291,557 service members died in the total war.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004615.html
So according to these journalist we could have 100 times as many deaths as we do now in Iraq and still have it be as justified as World War II. Of course this is not how you justify a war, and in the same way, Romney is not more conservative than his church. The comparison between deaths at Pearl Harbor and the resulting military deaths do not compare to the number of deaths on September 11th and the total military deaths in Iraq, unless you are a moron, or a journalist. The issues are more complicated than Journalist let on.
In the same way, you can’t compare how conservative Romney is to how conservative his church is, that doesn’t take political stances. These things just don’t compare, unless you are very, very, stupid.
“It was in the 1970s that the LDS church as an institution moved definitively into the political arena. As with white evangelicals, the galvanizing issues were the Equal Rights Amendment and Roe v. Wade, both of which the church saw as a threat to the nuclear family. Today, similar concerns animate the church's vocal opposition to same-sex marriage.”
“The church remains pro-life. But the official Mormon position on abortion differs in one key respect from that of the Catholic Church and many Protestant denominations: to the LDS church, abortion is not murder. The reason for this is that (again, unlike many Christian denominations) Mormon theology has no clear position on when a body acquires a soul -- when, in effect, earthly life begins.”
Oh my goodness. I’m not going to cuss. I’m not going to cuss. He just finished saying, "Mormon theology has no clear position on when a body acquires a soul” but then he says, “to the LDS church, abortion is not murder.” So what is the Mormon position on abortion? That it is not murder, according to the Boston Globe. But the Mormon church does not assert that abortion is not murder. We don’t’ assert anything. There is a BIG difference between these two positions, and there is not a big difference between Mormons and Evangelicals. He said, “Mormon theology has no clear position on when a body acquires a soul”. Well we could say the same thing about evangelical theology. I say, “Evangelical theology has no clear position on when a body acquires a soul.” That is because there is no one-clear definitive spokesperson who enterprises evangelical doctrine on the subject, just like Mormons. Many Mormons and Evangelicals think abortion is murder. Neither of our churches have an official policy. There are many different evangelical churches, and beliefs just like there are many different beliefs within the Mormon church, about how to interpret the scriptures in a political way. But it doesn’t really matter, because the bible teaches that we should not murder, or “do anything like unto it”.
He continues; “Since they don't define when the soul enters the body, they can't call abortion murder, they simply say it's 'like unto it,'" says Richard Sherlock, a professor of philosophy and expert on Mormon ethics at Utah State University. As a result, the LDS church takes a more flexible approach to abortion than many other churches, opposing what it calls "elective abortion for personal or social convenience," but allowing abortions in the case of rape, incest, fatal fetal deformities, or when the health of the mother is at risk. Just as significantly, it does not throw its weight behind legislative efforts to limit or outlaw abortion. In short, neither the Mitt Romney who ran for Senate in 1994 vowing to keep abortion safe and legal, nor the more recent "firmly pro-life" Romney, would be in the wrong according to the teachings of his church.”
So what do we learn? Not all Mormons think the same way. OMG! What else do we learn? Not all Evangelicals think the same thing! OMG!
“On abortion, such theological distinctions may not make much difference to many Mormons, the overwhelming majority of whom identify themselves as pro-life. But on the question of stem-cell research, which has become a major issue for the conservative Republican base, the official ambiguity on when life begins has had far more tangible political effects.”
“The LDS church has no official position on stem-cell research, but according to Dan Jones, a leading Utah pollster, more than 60 percent of the Mormons in the state, who tend to be among the country's most conservative, support it. Orrin Hatch is one of Congress's leading proponents of federal stem-cell funding, and his four Mormon colleagues in the Senate (Senator Harry Reid, a Democrat, and Senators Michael Crapo, Gordon Smith, and Robert Bennett, all Republicans) have taken similar positions.”
That is why I would never vote for Orin Hatch.
If you go here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney#Stem_cell_research
Romney vetoed a Massachusetts bill to fund stem-cell research because the legislation allowed the cloning of human embryos. "I am not in favor of creating new human embryos through cloning," said Romney, calling the practice "a matter of profound moral and ethical consequence". Romney also opposed the legislation because of its assertion that life does not begin until an embryo is implanted in a uterus. "It is very conceivable that scientific advances will allow an embryo to be grown for a substantial period of time outside the uterus," Romney said in an interview with the Boston Globe. "To say that it is not life at one month or two months or four months or full term, just because it had never been in a uterus, would be absurd." 1415 The state legislature overrode Romney's veto, with many legislators feeling that stem-cell research will be important in the future to the state's biotech industry.
I like Romney. How dare we use Government money, taken from individuals to do what they consider to be murder? If embryonic stem sells are so great, let the market fund them. We are republicans aren’t we? We aren’t socialist? We aren’t democrats. Why does the government need to fund embryonic stem sell industry making children into parts? Should the government get into the car-making industry too, while we are at it? Come on Orin. The liberals are never going to like you. Why would the government fund embryonic stem cells? Mitt and George Bush are right, and the rest of the Mormon politicians are stupid.
“In public appearances, Romney has credited his thinking about the moral consequences of stem-cell research with having led him toward a more conservative position on other reproductive issues, like abortion and emergency contraception. And while this shift may have made him a more viable national Republican candidate, on the stem-cell issue at least, it has placed him outside the mainstream of his own faith.”
“If this divergence between conservative Christians and Mormons springs from theology, another originates in the church's early history at the margins of American society. For Mormons, says Armand Mauss, a sociologist at the Claremont Graduate University School of Religion specializing in Mormon political and social attitudes, "there is an acute awareness of their own history as a persecuted people," a tendency "to lean on the side of freedom of expression for all different kinds of groups."
Yeah, Christians have never been persecuting! Has the Boston Globe over heard of Nero? Has the Boston Globe ever watched Saved? Have they any idea what it is like to live as a Christian today? Teachers have a higher per-capita rate of abusing kids, but all you ever hear about is priest. Christians are constantly mocked. We both are persecuted.
“This history has translated into a respect for the constitutional separation of church and state not always popular on the religious right. John Green, a senior fellow in religion and American politics at the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, describes Mormons as having "a special sensitivity to relations with the government." While evangelical leaders like Pat Robertson and James Dobson have publicly supported the Bush administration's funding for faith-based programs, for example, the LDS church has refused to participate in the initiative out of a fear that with government money comes government control (several conservative Christian organizations, including the Southern Baptist Convention, have taken similar positions).”
And so because Pat Robertson and James Dobson support the faith-based initiatives, every evangelical must be for them? The Mormon Church didn’t participate in them, and so every Mormon must be against them. I am a Mormon, and I love the faith based programs.
I don’t like how the welfare system took away the need for people to cultivate charity. I don’t like how it made individuals non-reliant on their neighbors, and trying to fit into the larger community. Christians need opportunities to practice christ’s love, our his teachings mean nothing. What better way than for a church to help pick up garbage, clean a park, help the homeless, help people with addiction problems, or whatever the community needs. I don’t know why my church is not involved in it. Maybe because our church members are largely consentrated in one geographic area, it is more important for our church to avoid it because of accusations in these regions of separate of church and state issues. And this would even make it worse. But if we were more geographically distributed, our church would participate. But who cares? Why does the Boston Globe care what Romney’s church does? Does it mater? Why not ask Romney what his views are? Well you don’t need to, he has a press release:
06-28-2005, ROMNEY VOICES SUPPORT FOR FAITH-BASED PROGRAMS
Romney has said, “The organizations and congregations represented here today have the power to lift up those around us who may have fallen on hard times. Millions in need across our nation have been touched by the positive influence of faith-based organizations. It gives me great pleasure that Ann has agreed to serve as our state’s ambassador in this compassionate effort.”
But no. Lets not read his press releases to figure out what Romney believes, lets investigate what his church has done!
In his book, TurnAround, Mitt Romney has sharp criticism for local government leaders around the 2002 winter Olympics who saw the Olympics as a pork-barrel project. Mitt Romney chose to live in Massachusetts. I don’t think he would necessarily say that people in Utah are perfect about keeping separation between church and state. I choose to live in Illinois. I think the writer of this article is giving Mormons a lot more credit than they deserve, and I think it is because he is trying to tick off evangelicals.
“For the most part -- and despite evidence, recently reported by the Globe, that Romney aides had talked to LDS church leaders about creating a network of Mormon supporters for the upcoming campaign -- the church is conscientious about keeping partisan politics separate from religious matters. Aside from what it sees as issues relating to "how children are raised," says Jan Shipps, widely considered the leading non-Mormon historian of the religion, the church's leaders tend to shy away from taking political action (doing so would, of course, also endanger the church's nonprofit status). Polling done by BYU's Quin Monson and Notre Dame political scientist David Campbell found that, between Catholics, Southern Baptists, and Mormons, as the two write, "Mormons are by far the least likely to receive political cues at church."’
Oh great, another poll. Do you think we could see the data for that poll? What is a political cues? Who conducted the poll? Sure this is good news for the more secular of the Evangelicals, but these are the last people Romney wants to be friends with at this point, and the Globe knows it.
“Because of this insistence on separate religious and political spheres, Mormons appear less likely to wade into other culture-war debates, such as the teaching of evolution. Duane Jeffery, a BYU professor of biology and a leading opponent of teaching intelligent design in science classes, says the issue hasn't had the same resonance for Mormons as it has for many evangelical communities -- not because the LDS church is full of diehard Darwinists (the church has no official policy on the subject) but because Mormon parents, by and large, are satisfied that their children are getting their religious instruction through the often daily seminary classes the church runs for them. "In general," he says, "most of them feel that there's not much reason to get politically involved" over the issue.”
In general? You can’t speak in general. Here is a great defense of Intelligent Design by a great Mormon:
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2006-01-08-1.html
He says, “Now the controversy is between advocates of the theory of Intelligent Design vs. strict Darwinists. And some people want you to think it's the same argument. It isn't.”
“My first exposure to Intelligent Design theory was Michael Behe's book Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. While disavowing any Creationist agenda per se, Behe pointed out serious problems in the strict Darwinian model of evolution…”
The Darwinists Reply
The Darwinist answer was immediate. Unfortunately, it was also illogical, personal, and unscientific. The main points are:
1. Intelligent Design is just Creation Science in a new suit (name-calling).
2. Don't listen to these guys, they're not real scientists (credentialism).
3. If you actually understood science as we do, you'd realize that these guys are wrong and we're right; but you don't, so you have to trust us (expertism).
4. They got some details of those complex systems wrong, so they must be wrong about everything (sniping).
5. The first amendment requires the separation of church and state (politics).
6. We can't possibly find a fossil record of every step along the way in evolution, but evolution has already been so well-demonstrated it is absurd to challenge it in the details (prestidigitation).
7. Even if there are problems with the Darwinian model, there's no justification for postulating an "intelligent designer" (true).
Let's take these points in turn:
1. You have to be ignorant of either Creation Science or Intelligent Design -- or both -- to think that they're the same thing. Creation Science is embarrassing and laughable -- its authors either don't understand science or are deliberately deceiving readers who don't understand it. Frankly, Creation Science is, in my opinion, a pack of pious lies.
But the problems that the Designists raise with the Darwinian model are, in fact, problems. They do understand the real science, and the Darwinian model is, in fact, inadequate to explain how complex systems, which fail without all elements in place, could arise through random mutation and natural selection.
If Darwinists persist in trying to tar the Designists with the Creation-Science brush, then it is bound to appear, to anyone who has actually examined both, that the Darwinists are trying to deceive us. (They're apparently counting on most people to not care enough to discover the difference.)
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2006-01-08-1.html
I imagine most Mormons would defend intelligent design, and probably more of them would defend it if they read the above article. In fact I don’t see how anyone would have a problem with intelligent design. Also, mormons do not have a daily seminary class, just the high school students, and attendance rates are not that great.
“On the issue of school prayer, which conservative evangelicals overwhelmingly favor, Mormons are divided. In Utah, according to the pollster Dan Jones, most Mormons support it. Polling numbers outside of Utah are harder to come by, but some political scientists and sociologists of the church argue that Mormons living elsewhere see school prayer as a threat.”
Let me assure you that we do not view hearing other people pray as a threat. I feel uncomfortable because of what Christ said about the matter. He said
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/matt/6/5-6#5
5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the ahypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets (and in the football stadium), that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy acloset, and when thou hast bshut thy door, cpray to thy Father which is in dsecret; and thy Father which eseeth in secret shall freward thee openly.
The scriptures also say the following:
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/matt/5/16#16
16 Let your alight so shine before men, that they may see your good bworks, and cglorify your Father which is in heaven.
So when people pray in public, especially outside of church, I don’t know if they are hypocrites who pray to be seen of men, and want the glory for themsleves, or if they are trying to let their light shine to bring glory to God. When people pray in at a football stadium I usually assume they are hypocrites, and I feel uncomfortable because I think they are making an ass out of themselves, but let me assure you. We are not “threatened” when we hear others pray. We just feel bad for them.
“Two-thirds of American Mormons live outside the Mormon strongholds of the Western mountain states, and as BYU political scientist Richard Davis puts it, "There's a little more uneasiness about it because of the realization that they're a minority." The 2000 Supreme Court case Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, which outlawed student-led prayers before football games, was brought by a Mormon family in Texas.”
Great, that is going to make evangelicals really happy. Thanks Globe!
“That is not to say that the church refrains from telling its members what sort of life to lead (devout Mormons cannot drink alcohol, smoke, or have caffeine), but it often allows them the freedom to make decisions that other conservative churches would balk at.
The caffeine thing is a persistent rumor, but it is not true. I was a Mormon missionary for two years in Tennessee, and 95% of my co-workers all drank coke. But 95% of them were also guilty of thanksgiving-esque gluttony any time free food was offer them too, so what does that tell you?” Maybe nothing, but the church has no official policy on caffeine. Just believe me ok. OK, that’s one rumor taken care of.
“During the heated debate over the fate of Terri Schiavo, for example, the Mormon church reiterated its position that, "Members should not feel obligated to extend mortal life by means that are unreasonable."’
How exactly did the church reiterate this? Shouldn’t they have to put footnes or something? I have never heard this policy, and I go almost every week.
"There are fewer fixed dos and don'ts" for Mormons, says Sherlock. On end-of-life issues, he says, "the Mormon Church says, 'Think about it, pray about it, and get the best answer you can."'
Not accordinig to anti-Mormons. They think we think we have to work our way into heaven. They don’t think we believe in Christ’s Grace. They will always tell you that they are saved, and rub it in your face that they can just kick back knowing that they are saved.
“It's this idea that Romney himself seemed to refer to in a 1994 interview with the Boston-based gay and lesbian newspaper Bay Windows, in which he rooted what was then his strong support for gay rights in his religion. Drawing on the Mormon concept of "free agency" -- the idea that, despite God's foreknowledge of what we will do, we are still free to choose our actions -- he made a political argument about the value of tolerance. "Our society should allow people to make their own choices and live by their own beliefs," he argued.”
“Since those comments resurfaced a few weeks ago, Romney has been pressed to reconcile them with his now strident opposition to same-sex marriage. On that issue, Romney's newly assertive conservatism places him in step with his church. On others, though, he seems more a conservative evangelical than a Mormon.”
Once again I say it. How can Romney be in step politically with a church that does not have political positions? Once again all evangelicals are not involved in the faith-based initiatives, or think that life starts at exactly the same time. Romney’s opposition to same sex marriage is not new.
If you just read this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney#Same-sex_marriage
…you will read this; “When he ran for governor in 2002, Romney declared his opposition to both same-sex marriage and civil unions.69 "Call me old fashioned, but I don't support gay marriage nor do I support civil union," said Romney in an October 2002 gubernatorial debate. He also voiced support for basic domestic partnership benefits for gay couples.”
December 30th, 2006: Feedback from a post
I received the following feedback on one of my posts:
Romney is a liar and an idiot. How dare he try to amend the Massachusetts Constitution! How do voters feel? It's obvious! Did Romney's Right-wing wish-list Republica win in the 2006 election for governor? OR was it PRO-Gay Marriage and PRO-Equality candidate Deval Patrick? The answer is clear.
Just a few more days and Romney will be looking for another job. This guy is a loser and nothing but. Spends all his time on gay marriage, can't even run the state...that's why the Democrats now have it! Good Riddance Romney!!
This is my response:
Why is Romney a "liar" and an "idiot"? If Romney is a "liar" what lie did he tell? If he is an idiot what idiotic thing has he done? Your post tells more about you than it does Romney.
He is not trying to amend the Massachusetts constitution, it is the voters... Do you know anything about this issue? Or do you only read the Boston Globe?
You might want to read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney#Same-sex_marriage
and this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Massachusetts
before you say anything else stupid.
re: "Did Romney's Right-wing wish-list Republica win in the 2006 election for governor? OR was it PRO-Gay Marriage and PRO-Equality candidate Deval Patrick? The answer is clear."
Yes that was one of the issues in the race for Governor. I guess you think the voters have already spoken, but you know there are these things called ballet initiatives that voters can vote on. They get to choose the outcome of one issue at a time. Look into it, it is kind of cool. There were many issues that went into a vote for Governor. Why don't you want to let the people vote? Are you afraid you might loose? I thought you believed in Democracy? Why shouldn't the people be able to vote? When the courts decide and when should the people decide? When ever you don't like the outcome, the process must have been wrong? Get a life, and go away to one of your idiotic websites where all you idiots can live your pathetic little lives and leave us alone.
Re: “This guy is a loser and nothing but.”
Did you see Little Miss Sunshine? You are the loser, man. People who use the word loser are the only losers. We all win and we all loose some times. Those that loose more often than win need our help, not ridicule. Romney is not one of these people.
Alright, you only have two more accusation, and you offer zero reasons to agree with these accusations. I find this typical of Romney detractors. A lot of accusation, and name calling, but no reason, or logic. No reasons to agree with their conclusions that they repeat over and over again. That is why I want to create a forum where people brain storm "Reasons to agree" or disagree with conclusions, and try to put the best reasons to agree with a conclusion at the top of the list. This will force us to have some sort of rational discussion. But I digress. Here are the last two accusations:
1. Romney spends all his time on gay marriage,
2. Romney can't even run the state...
I assume that he means that Romney spends too much time on gay marriage, instead of “all his time”. I do not know how much time Romney has spent on Gay Marriage. One way to figure out the relative amount of time he spends on something would be to count the press releases. I count 4 press releases having to do with gay marriage. I see 28 press releases on education, 19 press releases that deal with housing, 15 press releases that have to do with homelessness, 8 press releases that have to do with terrorism, in fact I can’t find one issue that has fewer press releases than gay marriage. I’m sure there are. I’ve been clicking on them from my site, but I’m tired of looking, that is all I can find for now.
Another way to figure this out would be to count the number of words coming out of the office, or his speeches, and figure out the percentage of time devoted to the issue. But I assume you are not interested in really finding the truth.
The last accusation is this. “Romney can’t even run the state”. Oh, my, gosh. What does someone say to something like this. How are we supposed to have any sort of rational debate when this is the kind of stuff you have on the internet? This is what 90% of the people on the internet are like. No joking. Their nuts! I am going to pretend that this world is sane, and I am going to try to deal with the stupidity that I am surrounded with. OK. How do we measure weather someone can or can not “run the state”? Does a Governor or do the people “run the state”? One part of “running the state” might have something to do with the budget, and taxes. Why don’t you look into how well Romney has done on those issues, before we continue this intelligent debate?
~Mike
December 3rd, 2006: Nixon, Romney, Bill, etc.
Think about the two worst events of the last century for the Republican Party. Where would Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton stand on that list.
Its strange how things all work out. Mitt Romney’s Dad, George Romney, lost the primary battle to Richard Nixon. Can we all agree that the country and world would have been a better place, if George Romney would have one instead of Richard Nixon?
Think of how much better the world would be, if we never had Watergate. Think how much better the world would be, if we had never had Monica Lewinsky in the oval office.
If Ross Perot would have not run, everyone says that George H Bush would have won a 2nd term. Why did people vote for Perot? It was a protest vote. A lot of conservatives thought that George H Bush was not conservative enough, and so they voted for Perot as a protest vote (My home State, the one party rule or Massachuseetts for Republicans went, in this order, Ross Perot, H, Bill). Thanks a lot. If it wouldn’t have been for the protest vote, we would have never had Bill, Hillary, or Monica Lewinsky in the office. We would have never had Kenneth Star. There probably wouldn’t have been a backlash against Newt Gingrich (OK I don’t know this for sure, but I’m trying to get you to think of all the changes in history that would have happened).
People are talking about a protest vote against Mitt Romney already.
If the American people would have been smarter, they would have voted for George Romney rather than Richard Nixon. If the American people, many of them republicans, had been smarter they would have voted for George H Bush instead of Ross Perot.
If H hadn’t had lost to Clinton, W wouldn’t have had to restore his dad’s honor. W would probably still be a much loved Governor in Texas. The son wouldn’t have had to erase the so called wrongs of his father.
Norman Swartcoft wanted to go into Baghdad, but H stopped him. W thought his dad had made a mistake in Iraq by not listening to his military leaders. Now things have come full circle, and people blame Bush (or Rumsfeld) for not listening to their military leaders.
Now we have another son, who may be trying to fulfill the unfulfilled desires of his father. What would be going through your mind right now if you were Mitt Romney? His dad should have been president instead of Richard Nixon. Every day of his life, he has had to think about that. Think of what a better place this world would have been, if the Republican Party had never had Richard Nixon as president, and he would have stayed a popular Representative from California.
Did Nixon ruin California for Republicans?
Look at the similarities between Bush and Romney. Both children of individuals who lost the presidency, of course Romney never had it where Bush lost his second term.
Looking for 6 degrees of separation, what about Mitt Romney and John McCain?
“As governor, George Romney didn't always toe the GOP line. A champion of civil rights and a perceived moderate, he walked out on Barry Goldwater's acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention in San Francisco in 1964.”
Guess who took Barry Goldwater’s position? John McCain.
“Goldwater lost the 1964 Presidential election in a landslide to incumbent Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson. The Johnson campaign and other critics painted him in 1964 as a radical reactionary, while supporters praised his crusades against the federal government, corrupt labor unions, and the welfare state. His defeat allowed American liberals to pass their Great Society programs. However the defeat of so many older Republicans in 1964 also opened the way for a younger generation of American conservatives to mobilize; they followed Ronald Reagan not Goldwater.”
By the 1980s, the increasing influence of the Christian Right on the Republican Party so conflicted with Goldwater's libertarian views that he became a vocal opponent of the religious right on issues such as abortion and gay rights. Goldwater concentrated on his Senate duties, especially passage of the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986.
He would eventually lose to President Lyndon Johnson by one of the largest margins in the history of U.S. Presidential elections. Consequently, the Republican Party suffered a significant setback nationally, losing many seats in both houses of Congress. Goldwater carried only his home state and five (formerly Democratic) Southern states. Many Republicans at the time angrily turned against Goldwater, claiming that his defeat had significantly set back the party's chances of future national success.
Some people think that Romney, who is undoubtedly more conservative that McCain, or Giuliani still think that is not extreme conservative enough. Some people would rather loose with Barry Goldwater than with Reagan.
And now look at what is going on with Romney and the Christian Right. Every chicken comes home to roost. Everything in this next election is going to be the culmination of ideological battles started years ago, involving the Bushes, revenge for a father (think Shakespeare), Reagan’s ideas, Barry Goldwat’ers ideas, the person who succeeded Goldwater’s. We have another movie star actor in Hollywood. Everything is so crazy! If Romney runs, it will fly smack in the assumption of New England Liberals. Will it finally bring balance to the force? Will it bring balance to New England. Look. Who has Romney been fighting with in Massachusetts. Ted Kennedy.
People are going to say that I am comparing McCain to Goldwater. I am not. I am saying, look at the colmination of history that will go into 2008. I'm not saying people are like other people. I'm just saying look at all that is going on around us. There have been examples that we can learn from in the past. We don't want to be seen as so extreme that we loose. Hilary will be seen as extreme. Mrs. New York liberal. Many democrats at my office have said that they will move to Canada if Hillary wins. There is a battle ax perception, and ask Al Gore, people don't loose their perceptions.
If we follow our history and make the primaries about who is liberal enough from the democrats side, and who is conservative enough from the conservative side, then we have good news for Romney, because when it comes around to the general election, it is always about who is moderate enough and Republican from Massachusetts Romney wins New York Liberal Hillary.
But if the Democrats deside to send who they think will be the best president, not just who has kissed the most liberal butts, they will send Bakak Obama. Again, we need Romney. Romney is the only person who can stand toe to toe with Obama intellectually. Obama, who graduate magna cum laude from Harvard law, in 1991 will make McCain who stood 895th out of a class of 900, look like an idiot.
Can you ask for more drama than what is going to happen in 2008? What will happen with the religious right? Will they follow in the footsteps of Goldwater or Reagan? Will the son of Goldwater’s and Nixon’s nemesis rise to ascendancy as presidency after doing 4 years of battle with the nephew of a formerly assassinated president (wasn’t Ted Kennedy the nephew of JFK)?
Will we have two sons of jilted fathers rise to the presidency (Romney and Bush)? Will we have a Harvard Cum Laude, JD and MBA son of who should have won the presidency instead of Nixon, the war hero following in the footsteps of Berry Goldwater, who stood up to the religious right, but who is now apposing his main opponent, the Harvard Cum Laude MBA JD, or will we have the Jilted Wife of a previous president?
As Romney would say, Holy Cow!
Weather you like Chess, sports, or Shakespeare you have got to watch the fireworks as they unfold in 2008.
~~~Myclob
November 23rd, 2006: Steven Write
Steven Wright said, “A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking.” Some people get tired of thinking after about 3 seconds. For example, some people don’t want to think any more after hearing that Mitt Romney apposes same sex marriage. It takes about 3 seconds for them to digest this bit of information and come to the conclusion that Mitt Romney is a flaming bigot. If you try talking to them, it will do no good, they are tired of thinking. They have come to their conclusion. It is now time to act. So they start websites called, “Romney is a Fraud” and will post messages on a Dailey basis calling him a bigot. These people are not interested in the truth. They will call him a fraud, even though he stated his opposition to gay marriage in his candidacy for Governor, and attributes his more moderate stance to one of the reasons why he won.
These people are not interested in discovering if Romney is a bigot or not. They are not interested in hearing what he has to say on the matter, they have made their conclusion, and reading something like this from Romney will not sway them; “This is a subject about which people have tender emotions in part because it touches individual lives. It also has been misused by some as a means to promote intolerance and prejudice. This is a time when we must fight hate and bigotry, when we must root out prejudice, when we must learn to accept people who are different from one another. Like me, the great majority of Americans wish both to preserve the traditional definition of marriage and to oppose bias and intolerance directed towards gays and lesbians.”
Thomas H. Huxley has said; "Irrationally held truths may be more harmful than reasoned errors." I agree with him. If we throw out logic, if we come to conclusions without using facts then we destroy the systems in which truth can be advanced.
So here is a hint for those of you who want to keep calling Mitt Romney a bigot. You are going to have to do more than just call him one, or assume he is one, when you tell us what was going threw his bigoted mind when ever he decided to do something.
The following exchange took place in the Movie, “A Man for All Seasons”.
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
We can not determine if Mitt Romney is a bigot in a court of law, and so we are going to have to do the next best thing. We are going to have to use truth promoting techniques, used in effective judicial systems, such as hearing both sides.
No one likes being called names, so why are those who often called names, willing to be so quick to call Romney a bigot? I assume most gay people like both their parents. Can they accept that someone would want kids to have both a mother and a father without calling them a bigot? Can they accept that most kids would proffer a mother and father. When the interest of adults who want to adopt children, comes in conflict with the assumed interest of children, do you have to side with the adults in order to avoid being called a bigot? Well of course you do! Between the two motivated parties: children who need adopting, and adults who want to adopt them, the only ones who are politically active, and have a voice are the adults.
But see, I don’t want to do more damage defending Romney, than if I wouldn’t have become involved. So if you got tired of thinking and made your conclusion before reading my next paragraph, you may be mislead of my intentions.
Believe me or not, I am not trying to say that gays should not be able to adopt children, I am just saying that Romney should not be called a bigot because he doesn’t think Catholic charities should be punished for not letting gays adopt the children within their system.
If we are going to throw words around, we should understand what those words mean. A bigot is: “One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.” Catholic charities and Mitt Romney are not intolerant of those with different beliefs. They are not trying to stop gays from adopting children in Massachusetts. They just want Catholic charities to do good for the community within their belief system that places a preference on families with both a mother and a father. From my perspective, it is the other side in Massachusetts that is intolerant of catholic charity’s mother and father centric belief system. Catholic charities harms no gay couples, when they only place their children within families that have both mothers and father. However it is their mother and father belief system that is being eradicated in Massachusetts, not the gays.
An example of a well reasoned argument trying to assert the conclusion that Mitt is a bigot would not omit quotes where Mitt Romney attacks bigotry. When we not longer advance well reasoned arguments, we are just throwing bombs at each other and no one is safe.
A well reasoned argument that Mitt is an opportunist and a fraud regarding his opposition regarding gay marriage will not omit the fact that Mitt has always been against gay marriage.
A well reasoned argument that Romney is traveling too much advances some sort of argument, instead of assuming everyone knows he travels too much. A well reasoned argument would acknowledge that there are times when it is less important to be within the boarders of the state of Massachusetts, like when the legislature is out of session. A very well reasoned argument would somehow prove that Mitt Romney is no value to his state when he is talking to people in other states, by proving that there are no similarities between people in Massachusetts and those that live outside of Massachusetts. An honest argument would acknowledge that Mitt Romney has spent more time in Massachusetts than Hillary Clinton has spent in the State of New York. They would acknowledge that Romney has planted deeper roots in Massachusetts than Hillary has in New York. That he has raised his children in Massachusetts, done his business, and gone to school in Massachusetts. If the Boston newspapers really want to ensure that their state matters nothing to the rest of the country, and that no one ever attains national office from their state again, they can keep up their hatred of anyone who dares visit other places.
A well reasoned argument would somehow prove that Mitt Romney is unable to use his phone to conduct business back in Massachusetts while he travels. Or perhaps he is unable to work on legislation that affect that blessed state, unless he is within its boarders. Or at least that he has spent less time serving the people of Massachusetts, than other Governors have in their 4 years of office.
A well reasoned argument that he is a “do nothing governor” would at least on the surface try to assert that the things he has done, including the most significant reform of emergency room and health insurance funding, and balancing an enormous budget deficit, amount to nothing.
You can not start with the conclusion, you must start with the facts. If you want to be taken seriously, you can not or ignore things can easily be found like in Romney’s Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney.
I’m an electrical engineer. I have to start with Data. I can’t say, I believe this op-amp will operate in this way, and so I will go from there. I have to research how the op-amp performs. The same with Romney. When I was trying to figure out if I wanted to support Mitt Romney or not, I wanted to find out where he stood on the issues. Americans for Mitt gave me a good start, of a list of quotes from Romney on each subject. Romney’s wikipedia article gave me some good background information, and the blogs that existed gave me a lot of what other people thought about Romney. But I wasn’t satisfied. I wanted to find a comprehensive list of Romney quotes, and actions organized by each subject. So I created a website and have been organizing his quotes, Quotes, Press Releases, and actions, all by subject and by date.
Our concern should not be that our side wins, but that we are on the side of truth. Lincoln said, “My concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God's side, for God is always right." It is not important that we speak the loudest, or post the most posts, it is important that we do the most research and always use logical arguments to advance our cause. We can not stoop to the other side’s technique of calling anyone who disagrees with them a bigot. We can not use un-supported claims or slogans like Romney is a do nothing Governor, without examining what he has done, and trying to prove that it amounts to nothing. I think Hillary Clinton is a do nothing senator, but I’m not going to make that assertion without doing at least a little research into what she has done, and tried to do.
Using Google, I can not find the article (I guess they need to do a little more work) that explains how Google uses a “follow the data” corporate culture. From what I understand, they make it very clear that they don’t care what any of their employees think, unless they bring the data to the table to support their conclusions.
In order for Mitt Romney to win, we are going to have to do the same thing. We are going to have to do more than tell each other how great Mitt Romney is, and how stupid everyone else is. We are going to have to do more than call names. We are going to have to do research. True, it shouldn’t take too much research to prove that Mitt Romney would make a better chief executive officer of the nation. It could be said that Romney’s record speaks for itself, but not everyone is interested in finding Romney’s records. Many people are more interested in calling names. We are going to have to organize, condense, expand, ferment, and fully explain Romney’s record, and distribute it to the name callers and stone throwers.
We are going to have to speak truth to power. We are going to have to confront the Boston Globe when they keep asserting that Romney hates Massachusetts, with the following quotes:
- "There's no question I do love jokes," Romney answered when queried on this point. "Indicating that there are very few conservative Republicans in Massachusetts, I do not think is a surprise to anyone inside or outside of Massachusetts and is in no way an indictment of the state. If anything, it's a recognition that I have to do a better job of recruiting Republicans."
o Governor Mitt Romney, Mighty Mitt Romney, By Shawn Macomber, The American Spectator, 04-21-2006
As for Democrats' complaints about the amount of out-of-state traveling he's done, Romney refuses to repent. "My guess is my travel outside of the state has been far less than either Michael Dukakis or Senator Kerry," he said, adding, "What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and I would encourage my Democratic friends to remember that."
o Governor Mitt Romney, Mighty Mitt Romney, By Shawn Macomber, The American Spectator, 04-21-2006
So, to be clear, did Romney -- who came here in 1975 to seek degrees from both Harvard Business and Law schools -- pursue the governorship out of some Machiavellian plan to attain higher office, or does he love the state he leads?
o Governor Mitt Romney, Mighty Mitt Romney, By Shawn Macomber, The American Spectator, 04-21-2006
- "We've lived here now 34 years, raised all five of our sons here, and paid a mountain of taxes here," Romney noted. "You don't do that unless you enjoy the state and the economic, social, and cultural opportunities which it provides."
o Governor Mitt Romney, Mighty Mitt Romney, By Shawn Macomber, The American Spectator, 04-21-2006
We are going to have to speak truth to power when people say that he is a do nothing governor. We are going to have to ask them were their data is. We are going to have to ask them were their logic, and arguments are. We are going to have to tell people we don’t care about there conclusions, we want to hear their well thought out arguments. Broadcasting your conclusion should not be allowed to stand as a valid way of sharing your beliefs. You are going to have to do better than that. You are going to have to use some sort of logic. You are going to have to list reasons to agree with your conclusion, and disprove reasons to disagree with your conclusion.
Hillary Health care is one of the biggest problems our country faces. China and India are standing up with power, as they embrace capitalism. We must remain strong in our acceptance of personal responsibility, and choice, as we help them stand up in a responsible way as world powers. We have a lot of important truths to advance. We can not waste any time by not using bulletproof logic, and we can accept no less by those who appose us.
We have to explain how Romney was right to stand up to bi-lingual education, and advance English Emersion for adults and children. These are difficult issues, Romney is right, but we have to do a good job of explaining why.
Einstein said things should be made as simple as possible, but not more so. We need to embrace all perspectives of an issue. We should not ignore the points of those who disagree with us, we need to refute them. We should not ignore those who disagree with us, and call Romney a bigot, we need to engage with them.
We shouldn’t delete comments in our blogs by those who disagree with us, we need to win in the war of ideas.
We can not let people over simplify the issues. No one is a do nothing Governor. Everyone is trying to advance a cause, and either you like what they did or didn’t like what they did, and you can’t summarize what an individual did in 4 years with two words: “Do nothing”. You are going to have to defeat Romney on an issue by issue basis. Things should be made as simple as possible, but not more simple.
Help me organize Romney data for each subject. Help me address each issue. Help me research Romney’s positions, and help me engage with those who hate him, call him names, are miss-informed, or no nothing about him. Look at data first, and then come to conclusion. Don’t let others think for you.
Its thanksgiving. We have a lot to be thankful for. I am thankful that I can try to fight stupidity were ever I confront it, even if I never win. I also have a wife and kid that I am thankful for, but I might not have them much longer if I don’t get off this stupid computer.
~~~Mike
Oct, 24th 2006; Web 2.0
A new day has (finally) dawned in communication and therefore politics. With these changes you need to realize that the election in 2008 will be not won the same way it has always been won. The internet has significantly lowered the cost of getting the truth out there, and that is all we need in able to win, is to be on the side of truth.
This truth has become more and more clear to me, and was reaffirmed today while driving home from work and listening to NPR. Some lady was giving me the Bird right about the same time this story came on:
“YouTube Emerges as Political Tool in Campaigns”
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6376579
With the advances of the internet, we no longer have to rely on the Boston Globe to spoon feed us our news. We don’t have to rely on the MSM to tell us what a candidate said. We can find the entire speech online. The Boston Globe can no longer keep people from getting Romney quotes in context. The can no longer mischaracterize him. They can only make themselves look stupid.
We no longer have to rely on others to tell us what Mitt Romney has said. We can find all his press releases organized by subject on websites like this:
http://myclob.pbwiki.com/
We don’t need to have Romney’s quotes filtered to us by the MSM. We can get them directly, straight, as they say, from the horses’ (sorry Mitt) mouth.
http://myclob.pbwiki.com/Quotes
I have to say this again. For those who know nothing about YouTube and have not considered how it may affect 2008 you really need to listen to this from NPR.
“YouTube Emerges as Political Tool in Campaigns”
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6376579
We no longer have to wait for the News to tell people about Mitt Romney, all we have to do us up load our videos of him, and let people decide for themselves what they think of the guy. Don Stirling listen very carefully to me. We don’t need to raise a lot of money. We just have to make an intelligent case for Romney. Stop trying to raise money, and help me with this site:
http://myclob.pbwiki.com/
I’ll give you the password. We can organize Mitt Romney’s quotes by topic. I need help. Mitt Romney’s actions and words speak for themselves. Politics are a horse and pony show. Advertisements are lies. There is nothing worth saying that can be said in a 20 second TV commercial. Attack adds work, but we can find a better way. Besides Mitt Romney has stated many times that he went into politics to change the debate. We need to win on substance. We don’t need a lot of money to win on substance, we just need order. We need to organize, digest, and present Mitt Romney’s awesome record, and intelligent stance on the issues to the people.
Kem Gardner was trying to do what Howard Dean did in the last election. Send as many e-mails to as many people as possible asking them to support their candidates. But I don’t know why everyone wants to get e-mail addresses so bad. If you have something you want to say, why don’t you just start a blog? They are very easy to read, and if people want to read what you have to say, they can just go to your blog!
Go to this website.
http://www.blogger.com/start
It is very easy.
I was not impressed with the fact that Howard Dean was able to send out millions of spam messages a day.
Read Freakanomics and you will learn that money does not help people win elections. I know you think I’m stupid for saying this because it goes against conventional wisdom but it is true. Just read the books. Sure you need to be able to have some money in order to win, but freakanomics proved that with candidates who go against each other year after year, that when one candidate got more money one year than the next year, it did not change the outcome. I think the only thing we can do in order to win in 2008 is put forward a better candidate than the opposition, and do a good job of informing people of the truth.
I would love to read a blog from Kem Gardner. If he has something worth saying, I want to hear it. Usually I don’t have anything worth saying, and so I spend most of my Energy trying to organize Mitt Romney content.
Kem, I don’t mean to sound like an arrogant jerk. I’m only 29 years old. From what I learned on Evangelicals for Mitt, you’re a philanthropist. The globe didn’t tell me that, so why don’t you start your own blogg. Why don’t you support us why you like Mitt. In the future people won’t care what conclusion you have come to (that you support Mitt) they just want to know why you support Mitt. Do you have good reasons? Start a blog. Or if you don’t want to start a blog about Mitt (after all who cares what we think) help me help others find more first hand access to mitt. Help me figure out how to upload all of hundreds of Mitt Romney videos under multimedia from this website: www.mass.gov/ to U-Tube. This way we can feel good about ourselves. No one can blame us for winning the election for Mitt, by working harder or smarter than the other side. All we did is help others gain first hand un-filtered access to the truth about Mitt Romney, and let them make up their own minds. That’s all we have to do, is get the truth out their. Get Romney’s words, and actions out there, and let people decide for themselves. Lets not work for Mitt Romney. Lets work for the truth. Lets not convince others to vote for Romney, let them ask themselves if it is true that Mitt Romney will be the individual to help America the most, and if they can feel at peace with that belief on Election Day, than we can feel at peace with our actions.
You apologized, but what did you do that was wrong? You tried to send e-mails asking people if they would support Mitt Romney. We don’t need to ask anyone to support mitt Romney. Lets just make an intelligent and fair case for him, and people will flock to the Republican Governor of Massachusetts, who turned around a deficit, without raising taxes, stood up to for children, without stooping to bigotry, and hopefully will change the tone of politics for years to make the political debate about issues, instead of oversimplifications and mischaracterizations. In order to help him, lets focus on the issues.
(One last shameless plug for my website)
And for a complete list of issues go to this website:
http://myclob.pbwiki.com/
and find each issue organized alphabetically on the right.
Oct, 7th 2006; Romney (Wiki Quote) vs McCain (Wiki Quote)
Compare these two pages:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_McCain
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney
McCain's Site has photos, it has his speeches, it has all sorts of cool stuff. Lots of people have been working on McCain's Wiki Quote site, and I think I'm the only personon on the planet to work on Romney's Wiki Quote Site.
It is too big of a Job for one person.
Just so everyone knows how important this is, this site:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney
Is the 14th site that comes up when searching (with Yahoo) for "Mitt Romney". Lots of people use Yahoo to find content.
To put that in perspective,
www.americansformitt.com is # 28
mittromneyforpresident2008.pbwiki.com is #29
www.tnformitt.com is # 34
groups.yahoo.com/group/Mitt_Romney_For_President_2008 is # 43
The Wiki Quote Site is #14.
I think we need to make a good first impression, and that, for most people, is going to be the highest rated sites. I wish that was my site, but it is not. That is why I think it is so important to work on these Wiki Sites.
Tell me what you think. Does it sound like I'm nagging you? Do people know what I am asking them to do? Does everyone know how to edit a wiki? If anyone needs any help feel free to ask me.
Oct, 3rd, 2006; Too Much Travel?
But William G. Mayer , a political science professor at Northeastern University who had not yet seen the ad, said he doubted that highlighting Healey's partnership with Romney would help her, with his stance on abortion and his extended travel out of state making him ``essentially unelectable in Massachusetts from here on in."
OK, so he thinks the ad that he has not seen will not help. But really there are two questions. The first question is will Romney’s travel outside of Massachusetts hurt Romney, and the second question is SHOULD it hurt Romney in an ideal world? Should how much a governor travels be an issue as to weather they can be elected again.
We all know that is the same old drum that the Massachusetts media constantly beats. Mitt Romney travels too much, boo-who. They don’t have anything of substance to criticize, and so all they have is that he travels too much.
In the business world, does the board elect a CEO by who spends the most time within the confines of company property? Should the Governor of Massachusetts be the person who spent the most amount of time during the last four years within the state? What do we do when we discover that more than one person spent all of the last 4 years within the state of Massachusetts? Who do we make governor then?
Maybe we should count who has the most friends or family members living in Massachusetts, because, after all, the best person to be Governor of Massachusetts would actually be someone who didn’t know that there was any other state besides Massachusetts. New York, never heard of it?! What part of Massachusetts is New York in?
You know how many news articles and websites that Google finds when searching, “Mitt Romney Travel”? 477,000. When John Kerry ran for president how much whining did the Boston Globe do about that?
So I see two issues. One of fairness. Is a double standard applied? The second issue is validity. Does it really matter how much time a Governor is within his state? An over simplistic answer would be yes, or no. The right answer is, it depends. It depends on what is going on. If Mitt Romney is attending trade negotiations that affect Massachusetts, than everyone back home in the best state in the union (go home team) can rest assure, that Mitt Romney is not sluting around with other states (by the way, did you see the way that Hillary was talking to California? I’m just saying that things haven’t been so well with her and Bill senses the whole “right wing conspiracy thing”. So watch out New York, I hear she’s even been to a different countries!)
So there are times when it is in Massachusetts best interest to have their governor over seas or in different states working for the folks back home. So is Mitt Romney faithful to Massachusetts? Well for one thing, he is not taking a pay check, from a single Massachusetts tax payer. I would like for all the people who think he is not doing a good job serving the citizens of Massachusetts, to pledge to do a better job them him. Not just sitting within the boarders of the commonwealth, but actually getting things done. And follow Mitt’s example. Serve your beautiful state, that you would never dare leave, by not taking a paycheck.
I would like to see Mitt complain about the Democrats, who need to take a pay-check from old ladies living in Massachusetts, the next time one of them complain that he dared travel outside the sacred promiced land that is Massachusetts. Maybe Massachusetts should succeed from the union. Obviously they want nothing to do with any one who has ever traveled to another state. Maybe we should kick them out. Why don't they just make their own country if they hate anyone who travels as much as Mitt. After all, no one out side of Massachusetts is worth talking to.
Mitt Romney created programs to stop nepotism, consolidated duplicate agencies, helped the homeless situation, turned around a giant deficient without raising taxes, stood up to the mobs, gangs, teachers unions, helped the police, and teachers, helped charter schools, stood up to the teachers unions (did I mention that already?), improved efficiency, stopped one-party rule, stood up for common sense, and achieved more than any governor I know of. But we should not look at results, we should not look at the good family man example that Mitt shows for the citizens, we should not look at what he has accomplished with smart growth, improving accountability, the health care industry, insurance industry, drunk driving, and sex offenders. None of this matters, because it is too complicated for average voters to grasp. What we need to focus on is how much time a governor spends within the boarders of the home state.
Way to go main stream media. You have let this world be that much stupider. Lets not look at issues. Lets make this a horse and pony show. Lets make this about accusations, and oversimplifications.
Sept 7th, 2006; News and the Truth
News and Media sources that are interested in truth will at least link to additional information after a post, but should really also link to contrary positions. It is stupid that each side only list facts that only support their conclusion. Journalist, and Newspapers that do not follow this obvious rule of thumb, should be ignored. I'm sick and tired of living in a stupid world were journalist are more interested in promoting their conclusions (and their companies bottom line) than uncovering the truth. Open your sites to comments. Link to contrary positions or at least additional information. Or stop calling yourself objective.
http://illinisans-4-mitt-romney.blogspot.com/2006/09/romneys-foreign-folly.html
Sept 1st, 2006; Please Help!
If thousands or even hundreds of people were to work together on a pro-Mitt Romney PB wikipedia, then that would qualify as an internet political revolution.
Reasons to agree:
- When you post something new to your Governor Mitt Romney blog you should also post it on this website.
- If you have something to add to the debate, it will help if you put it in context of other ideas.
- We should look at our Efforts as contributing to a viable alternative to the authoritive Mitt Romney book. Just like books are devided into chapters by topic, were a thesis is develped line upon line, until the conclusion, our post need to work in a similar way. Even if we could organize all our post by subject, it would be very difficult for someone to cram them all together into a cohesive whole. That is what we need to do.
- Wikipedia is revolutionary.
- Blogs can be annoying.
Iran
August 31st, 2006; by Myclob
If President Bush does not debate the president of Iran then the presidential hopefuls should.
Reasons to agree:
- Iran will be one of the biggest problems that America will face.
- It is better to have a confrontation of words, than of blood.
- You should exhaust every peacable means of resolving a conflict, before going to war.
- What could it hurt if the presidnet depated him?
Reasons to disagree:
- Maybe it would give him credibility to even appear on the same stage as bush.
- No one but the President, or a senior USG official like the VP, SecState or SecDef, should debtae the head of an enemy state in time of war, and serious
and deadly diplomatic disputes, the nation does not need a fractured response to a state like iran the President is the leader of the US and the point man responsible for US foreign policy we do not need, nor can the US really afford, to have someone without authority debate the President of Iran.
Mitt Romney Revolution!
I would like to create an internet revolution with Governor Mitt Romney's campaign for the presidency in 2008. I'm sure a lot of you would too. Some people think that Howard Dean had an affective online campaign for president. The fact that he was able to send millions of spam messages every day does not impress me. These people could have just went to his website and read his ideas. Thousands of Idiots are able to send out millions of Viagra advertisements every day, and we don't try and make presidents out of them. Substance is more important than just using a new technology.
Some people site the number of Governor Mitt Romney blogs as early evidence of his appeal. Or perhaps we should pay attention to how he is doing on very unscientific polls.
I was one of the creators of an early Mitt Romney blog. I wanted to preserve Governor Mitt Romney's Press Releases, and enter them into cyberspace in such a manner that people could respond and interact with his words. Over the past 6 months I've received about 3 or so comments. I don't know about you, but I am not impressed with our ability to all recycle the same old news stories. Even if we found professional writers, historians, philosophers, and politicians to contribute to the Mitt Romney bloging community, I still do not think our efforts could be considered an online political revolution. Aleister Crowley said, "To read a newspaper is to refrain from reading something worthwhile. The first discipline of education must therefore be to refuse resolutely to feed the mind with canned chatter". I'm not saying that what we are righting on our blogs is canned chatter, I'm just saying that the format of the blog does not lend itself well to improvement or organization. It would be impossible for someone to read every single Mitt Romney blog post on the internet, besides there would be lots of repetition between all the Romney blogs.
Maybe all of the links, and blogs are improving the Romney internet footprint but it feels cheap to me. It feels like an advertising campaign to me, to try and improve a Google ranking. Advertising is the same as lying. If we are going to win, I want to win on substance, not because we beat the system. Besides it is too much work. It is easy work, to put a link, and say a few words, but like eating sugar, it is not very satisfying. What we need is heavy intellectual lifters that can be word smiths, that can revise, and revise until something sounds just right. We need people who are willing to stick with an issue until all aspects of it are covered, not people who jump from article to article.
The wikipedia website fulfills all the promises of the internet. It allows people to come together to a common table and truly collaborate. It provides a way to continually revise, edit, improve, and discuss a topic.
A blog post is fluff. It is created like a back-alley life that is discarded to the giant pile of blog-o-sphere post like an Abortion, to never be thought of again. A wikipedia article is created, and lovingly cared for, like a first born son. It is tweaked, and tweaked by multiple people until it sounds just right. It allows for order, because each issue gets its own spot. Millions of people can work on it, and all be heard. Each person is allowed to contribute.
When the internet came out, and before the bubble burst, there were all sorts of people hyping the new technology. It would bring people together, and solve conflict. However, different sides created their own website, and the day of the amateur-non-fact-checker has proven that opinions are like elbows, everyone has them.
People post their beliefs, without even trying to give valid reasons to agree with their conclusion. Everyone wants the right to be heard, but no one wants to accept responsibility of being logical.
People said the internet would change things, but the substance of thought on the internet was of a lower quality than the substance contained within actual books.
Sure you could respond to a "post" with another "post" but you could never get into the original post and fix it. And as the conversation goes, the confusion builds. Quality is killed, as we drown in the quantity of words. A decision is made when you are tired of thinking. The internal workings of each post is never re-worked, others just dance around it.
Then came wikipedia, and the world lived happily ever after.
Please help me edit my site: http://myclob.pbwiki.com/ If hundred or thousand of people were to work on this site, we would create an internet revolution. Right now the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney article rivals the best magazine article about Mitt Romney. Lets make this site: http://myclob.pbwiki.com/ set the standard for all future Mitt Romney books. Lets start a revolution.
August 22nd, 2006; Charges and misperceptions, not ideas and ideals
There is a chance that Mitt Romney will not get the 2008 Republican nominee. And if he does win it, there is a chance that he will not win against the Democratic nominee. Mitt Romney lost in 1994 against Senator Ted Kennedy. When Mitt Romney lost, he felt very disappointed. Sure, he was disappointed that he lost, but he was disappointed about something else. He said that he was disappointed that he had not improved the quality of dialogue. If Mitt Romney does not win the election, lets at least improve the quality of the dialogue trying to win.
In his book Turnaround, Romney said, "Ideas I brought forward were dissected and distorted to their illogical extreme." Romney had failed to "…raise new ideas for government, help rebuild a disappearing second party, and stand for something bigger than self interest… the campaign had been about charges and misperceptions, not ideas and ideals."
When we debate with people lets not distort their beliefs to “their illogical extremes”. Talk to a professor that teaches a logic course, and ask them what one of the stupidest type of arguments is. I bet you they will say the slippery slope. The slippery slope argument has wasted more time than any other argument. Lets not distort what people say, and take their comments to illogical extremes. If we are going to win a debate, let’s win it logically. If we are talking about x, lets not disprove x squared.
Romney wanted to also “rebuild a disappearing second party. Massachusetts is the most liberal state in our country. When we look at Mexico and Saudi-arabia we learn that one party systems are not very good. When Republicans only talk to republicans, and Democrats only talk to democrats we live in a scary world. I hate all the talk about red state and blue state. I hate all the 2nd grade oversimplification about “this person is too liberal” or “this person is to conservative.” Lets talk about issues. I have a list of hundreds of issues at this site: http://myclob.pbwiki.com/ with Mitt Romney quotes on each of them. So many people are mischaracterizing and oversimplifying his positions! There are so many people with an agenda. My agenda is clarity, and understanding.
One of the problems is that some pages don’t allow feedback. Such as the Salt Lake Tribune. They like the world were they can say any stupid thing, and then outlaw people from posting corrections.
Mitt Romney felt in his defeat from Ted Kennedy that the campaign had been about “charges and misperceptions, not ideas and ideals.” The same thing is going on today. People on the left are accusing Mitt Romney of hating gays because he apposes civil unions. They are taking his positions to illogical extremes. People on the right are saying that Romney has no morals, because he is nice to gay people, and says they should not be discriminated against. Both sides are stupid.
Mitt Romney is Strong on the Family. He said, "America cannot continue to lead the family of nations around the world if we suffer the collapse of the family here at home." Mitt Romney
For instance, Kate O'Beirne, from national review online said, “Should Mitt Romney join a 2008 race that included John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich and George Allen, the only guy in the GOP field with only one wife would be the Mormon. “
People are trying to say that Governor Mitt Romney is to liberal towards gays, even after all of this…
http://myclob.pbwiki.com/Family
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney#Same-Sex_Marriage
If Governor Mitt Romney really wants to improve the quality of diologue than he should outline all of his beliefs on a website, and let people post Reasons to agree or disagree with his beliefs. These reasons would go into one of two columns. Reasons to agree, and reasons to disagree. People could then move the best reasons to agree and disagree with each of Romney’s beliefs. We would have both sides coming together to the same page. We would have the arguments right there on the same page, with the best arguments at the top of each column, beneath each of Governor Mitt Romney’s beliefs. Mitt Romney can improve the quality of debate, by forcing those who want to post a reason to disagree, to evaluate the validity of the top reasons to agree on a scale form one to ten. This would force people to interact with their rivals. It would create dialogue.
I explain better how this will work here: http://ideastockexchange.com/ but for the purposes of this blog, I just want to say there are lots of things that we can do to improve the quality of debate. That way even if we loose, our efforts won’t have been in vain.
If we do not face the challenge of partisan stupidity, we could very well end up like this science fiction story: http://www.hatrack.com/osc/books/empire/empire.shtml
August 12, 2006; Man on a Mission
Mitt Romney would be very good at proselytizing the republican cause and principals, working with the Media, and with Democrats.
He tried to convince the French, for two years of his life to: stop drinking alcohol (including wine), smoking tobacco, attend church every Sunday for 3 hours, go on missions themselves, and to give 10% of their money to the Mormon church. If Mitt can convince people to do that, he can convince them to do anything! And just to have his arms tied behind his back, he did this all in his non-native language of French.
Asking the French to give up wine, is like asking them to give up cheese, or loosing wars! I think they also have the highest rate of smoking in Europe .
Like everyone smokes in France. It's like they are stuck in the 70s.
They are all Catholic, but none of them go to Church. And Romney asked for them to go to church for 3 hours. I hear that there are more Muslims attending mosques than there are Christians attending church in France! And this isn't just any church were you can sit back in the pews. The Mormon church has no paid ministry, so if you join the church, you are expected to work.
To tell you the truth, I don't know if Romney had any success while in France, but I was thinking of Romney in hostile territory in Taxachussetts, but he has probably been in hostile territory for a good part of his life. I mean, I am from Idaho. Idaho is the most republican state in the union. It takes nothing to be a Republican in Idaho (outside of Sun Valley). But I admire Mitt for fighting against the stream, and doing a good Job in Massachusetts.
August 11, 2006; Survival of the Fattest
Today I was thinking about Management Style and realized that who a manager desides to hire, is much like who a voter decides to vote for. We can vote for the best candidate or we can vote for someone who is "like us".
My thoughts turned to a Simpson's episode were Homer was chosen to be an astronaut because we was a blue collar slob. The old astronauts were successful athletic go getters, and people hate successful athletic go getters. I was wondering about how all of this will affect Mitt Romney. He is successful, he is athletic, and he is a go-getter. Will people hate him?
I have also been reading about the extramarital affairs of McCain and Giuliani. Some say that this will be help Mitt, but I wonder if people's weaknesses endear them to the public or not. Bill Clinton's popularity was never greater than after the news came out about his affair with his intern. It seems almost like it is cool or something. Steve Jobs said that Bill Clinton was too boring, and would be a better CEO if he would have dropped acid while in college! And people love Steve Jobs more than Bill Gates.
Then my mind runs all over. Mitt Romney has excellence written all over him, but people don't like excellence. My mind turn's to John Galt and Ayn Rand. I want to motivate people to choose the best candidate, not just someone who is like them. I worry that no one will think that Mitt Romney is like them. After all "People with courage and character always seem sinister to the rest." Hermann Hesse (1877 - 1962)
This morning I was watching the Incredible with my son. It too is a great movie about how people have problems with those who excel. I agree with Mitt more than anyone else, but that's not the only reason I support him. I know I'm not smart, but I still want smart competent people running the country. Is that so wrong?
We should copy and paste press releases from mitt romney's massachusets website and enter them into the blogosphere.
Reasons to agree
- they may go away, when he is no longer Governor of Massachusetts.
- in his book, turnaround, he wished that newspapers would use more of the olympic committee's press releases.
- press releases from Governor Mitt Romney are some of the only first hand words from Governor Mitt Romney that we have. We have his books, speeches, and press releases.
- we shouldn't worry about copying. The whole purpose of press releases is so that people can copy.
- the state of Massachusetts does not allow people to respond and talk about the press releases. This site allows more stuff
Reasons to disagree
- feel free to submit reasons to disagree or agree!
Http://illinisans-4-mitt-romney.blogspot.com/2006/04/romney-administration-receives-top.html
The first thing i wanted to do is organize all his press releases by topic. I have just completed that, and you can find my work on this website:
Http://myclob.pbwiki.com/
Just view the sidebar on the right. I brought over most of the press releases on the Massachusetts website. The ones that did not mention Governor Mitt Romney in the title, or that mentioned a topic that i did not know how to categorize by reading the summery, have been left un-documented for now. The site is easy to edit. Just get the password from me, and push the big "edit" button.
Order
Some say that God is order and that Satan is chaos. I think having reasons to agree and disagree with an idea on separate pages, or in a thread-type format is confusing. For example, some people think Mitt Romney is bad, and they give reasons to agree with their point of view on their websites. People that like Mitt Romney do the same thing on their website. I think we should bring all of their reasons to one webpage and organize them. I would especially like for Mitt Romney blogers to integrate the things they post by subject on this site. I think if we organize Mitt Romney data in such a way that it promotes order, that it will lead to one logical conclusion: he should be our next president.
"Everything should be as simple as it is; but not simpler." - Albert Einstein
I would like to create an internet revolution with Governor Mitt Romney's campaign for the presidency in 2008. I'm sure a lot of you would too. Some people think that Howard Dean had an affective online campaign for president. The fact that Howard Dean was able to send millions of spam messages every day does not impress me. These people could have just went to his website and read his ideas. Thousands of Idiots are able to send out millions of Viagra advertisements every day, and we don't try and make presidents out of them. Substance is more important than just using a new technology.
Some people site the number of Governor Mitt Romney blogs as early evidence of his appeal. Or perhaps we should pay attention to how he is doing on very unscientific polls.
I was one of the creators of an early Mitt Romney blog. I wanted to preserve Governor Mitt Romney's press releases, and enter them into cyberspace in such a manner that people could respond and interact with his words. Over the past 6 months I've received about 3 or so comments. I don't know about you, but I am not impressed with our ability to all recycle the same old news stories. Aleister Crowley said, "To read a newspaper is to refrain from reading something worthwhile. The first discipline of education must therefore be to refuse resolutely to feed the mind with canned chatter". I'm not saying that what we are righting on our blogs is canned chatter, I'm just saying that the format of the blog does not lend itself well to improvement or organization.
It would be impossible for someone to read every single Mitt Romney blog post on the internet, besides there would be lots of repetition between all the Romney blogs.
Contrary to the field of dreams, just because you build it, does not mean they will come.
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.