Homestar Runner Wiki Forum
http://forum.hrwiki.org/

Mitt Romney running for president
http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=8169		 Page 5 of 5
Author:  lahimatoa [ Thu Apr 12, 2007 6:17 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
I'm not sure if it's been mentioned yet, but Romney basically abandoned Massachusetts the last year he was in office to prepare his presidency run. For quite a while before the latest gubernatorial elections, the state was run by Acting Governer Kerry Healey, who then lost to Deval Patrick. Romney just kinda disappeared from Massachusetts news.


That's a fair thing to be concerned about. However, anyone who's running for president will neglect their current political position (or position at non-governmental work, for that matter). If you're going to disqualify a candidate for that, who will you vote for?

Quote:
As for ol' Mitt- mormon or not i just don't like him.


Would you consider it rude if I asked you to state your reasons why?
Author:  lahimatoa [ Sat Apr 14, 2007 10:44 pm ]
Post subject: 
me wrote:
Would you consider it rude if I asked you to state your reasons why?


I guess so.
Author:  ed 'lim' smilde [ Sat Apr 14, 2007 10:49 pm ]
Post subject: 
I'm not sure if putitinurshoe has read that yet, Lahi. He still hasn't posted anything since then.
Author:  lahimatoa [ Thu Apr 19, 2007 4:15 pm ]
Post subject: 
Well he has now.
Author:  IantheGecko [ Fri May 18, 2007 3:54 am ]
Post subject: 
Image

Saw a clip of Romney at the second GOP debate [transcript]. He said he wants to "double" Gitmo.
Quote:
We've all spent a lot of time talking about what happens after the bomb goes off. The real question is, how do you prevent the bomb from going off? And that's what I spent my time doing as a governor over the last four years, and serving on the Homeland Security Advisory Council. And that means intelligence and counterterrorism.

Now we're going to -- you said the person's going to be in Guantanamo. I'm glad they're at Guantanamo. I don't want them on our soil. I want them on Guantanamo, where they don't get the access to lawyers they get when they're on our soil. I don't want them in our prisons. I want them there.

Some people have said, we ought to close Guantanamo. My view is, we ought to double Guantanamo. We ought to make sure that the terrorists -- (applause) -- and there's no question but that in a setting like that where you have a ticking bomb that the president of the United States -- not the CIA interrogator, the president of the United States -- has to make the call. And enhanced interrogation techniques have to be used -- not torture but enhanced interrogation techniques, yes.


I'm sorry, I just can't accept that. We're violating the Geneva Conventions with Gitmo. And just what are these "enhanced interrogation techniques", and how are they not torture?
Author:  lahimatoa [ Fri May 18, 2007 6:18 am ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
I'm sorry, I just can't accept that. We're violating the Geneva Conventions with Gitmo. And just what are these "enhanced interrogation techniques", and how are they not torture?


Geneva Convention decisions apply to uniformed combatants. Terrorists fight under no flag.

I think there's already a thread about this.

Image
Author:  IantheGecko [ Fri May 18, 2007 6:30 am ]
Post subject: 
OK, getting back to Romney wanting to double Gitmo. Is he out of his mind?
Author:  lahimatoa [ Fri May 18, 2007 6:41 am ]
Post subject: 
IantheGecko wrote:
OK, getting back to Romney wanting to double Gitmo. Is he out of his mind?


Uh, no, I don't think he is.
Author:  IantheGecko [ Fri May 18, 2007 6:43 am ]
Post subject: 
Why not?
Author:  lahimatoa [ Fri May 18, 2007 6:45 am ]
Post subject: 
Why is he?
Author:  IantheGecko [ Fri May 18, 2007 6:47 am ]
Post subject: 
http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?t=10588
There haven't been any trials and only ten people have been charged with anything. They're basically holding the guys prisoner, awaiting nothing.
Author:  lahimatoa [ Fri May 18, 2007 6:49 am ]
Post subject: 
I will take this discussion to that thread.

Tomorrow.
Author:  IantheGecko [ Fri May 18, 2007 6:55 am ]
Post subject: 
Yes, time for bed in 5 minutes.
Author:  WierdAlFan [ Sat May 19, 2007 1:08 am ]
Post subject: 
honestly i dont think he will win the election for 3 reasons. hes a mormon. he dosent support same sex marriage and he supports the death penalty.
soo...most southern baptists wont vote for him. most of the homosexual community wont vote for him, and...some convicts moms wont vote for him. but i think it will all boil down to the fact of his religion, which, shouldn't but it does. i bet it wouldn't be a big deal if he were another religion, but the people just dont understand the mormons, and they dont want to, therefore they wont try to, there for they wont. and now dont think im saying that everyone thinks like that, because its just not true. i dunno.[/i]
Author:  Acekirby [ Sat May 19, 2007 3:17 am ]
Post subject: 
WierdAlFan wrote:
honestly i dont think he will win the election for 3 reasons. hes a mormon. he dosent support same sex marriage and he supports the death penalty.

Actually, take out the first reason, and he's got the vote of the religious right and most Conservatives.
Author:  Al Capone II [ Tue May 29, 2007 2:54 am ]
Post subject: 
Another thing on Romney: TIME actually ran an article on him about his beliefs. They say that: "His father's presidential bid ended after he stuck to his convictions. The question with Mitt Romney (the Republican who won his party's money primary) is, does he have any?" Although they also say that he is leading the polls, I would find it ironic if he lost because he didn't stick to his convictions while his father lost because he did.
Author:  lahimatoa [ Fri Dec 07, 2007 10:32 pm ]
Post subject: 
Anyone watch or read Mitt's "Faith in America" speech from yesterday?

Thoughts?
Author:  ed 'lim' smilde [ Sat Dec 08, 2007 12:36 am ]
Post subject: 
I would've, but I couldn't. We talked about it in class today. I'm watching it now.
Author:  lahimatoa [ Sat Dec 08, 2007 8:01 am ]
Post subject: 
ed 'lim' smilde wrote:
I would've, but I couldn't. We talked about it in class today. I'm watching it now.


Anything?

I'm obviously biased, so I'm keeping my thoughts to myself for now.

No one else read any of it? Watched any news reports? Listened to radio reports on it?

Strong Rad? BTG?
Author:  Beyond the Grave [ Sat Dec 08, 2007 4:40 pm ]
Post subject: 
lahimatoa wrote:
BTG?
To be quite honest, I am tired of listening to the Presidential Candidates. Once the Primaries get going, I will start listening again.

But I agree with Romney that religion should not be used in the disqualification of a candidate from office. This country, for all it's freedoms still has a religious bias to those that are not among the mainstream Protestant denominations such as Episcopalian, Baptist, Methodist, etc. For instance, Roman Catholicism is the largest single Christian denomination in the U.S., but we have only had one Catholic President. We have never had a Jewish President and, thanks to 9/11, we will most likely never have a Muslim President.

The reason we haven't had too many non-Protestant presidents is because of stereotype. When Kennedy was running for President, everyone was afraid that if Kennedy was elected that he would be honoring the commands of the Pope and not of the American People. Kennedy proved that to be false. Romney is in a similar situation, but instead of him being Catholic, he's Mormon. I hope Romney gets the nod for the GOP, if not a nomination for VP.
Author:  ed 'lim' smilde [ Sat Dec 08, 2007 7:01 pm ]
Post subject: 
lahimatoa wrote:
Anything?
Well, I guess I don't have much specific to say. I thought it was a good speech and agreed with what he said. I am glad to hear a conservative speak on it, rather than a liberal who would accuse conservatives of being closed-minded or something like that. As for Romney, I'm not sure he's my favorite candidate, but I think he's a wise leader who would at least make a good VP.
Author:  lahimatoa [ Sat Dec 08, 2007 9:59 pm ]
Post subject: 
Great post, BTG. While it's true that the Catholic church is the single biggest denomination in the country, if you combined all the Protestant ones into a one big church it'd be bigger. And they tend to vote all the same anyway, so politically they pretty much are.

And thanks for your thoughts, ed. We'll have to see what happens, but I think Romney has a great chance to win the GOP nomination.
Page 5 of 5 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/