Mormons: Political Monoliths - Page 5 - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

BlueK · 07-19-2007, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

so my distaste for Romney is actually common among LDS politicians.

It would be more accurate to say most haven't wanted to commit to him yet. Distaste is another issue altogether.

BlueK · 07-19-2007, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

you think?

A Republican congressman would vote for Romney over Hillary, yes. If they didn't they would never admit it publicly.

BlueK · 07-19-2007, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

I'm sorry, but that just smacks of a partisan trying to pass himself off as non-partisan.

Which is what the majority of LDS Republicans are these days. It's like it's in vogue to claim to be "independent minded" but when it comes down to it, there are very few who are really like that.

Indy Coug · 07-19-2007, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueK

Which is what the majority of LDS Republicans are these days. It's like it's in vogue to claim to be "independent minded" but when it comes down to it, there are very few who are really like that.

Give me a legitimate independent candidate and I'll vote for him/her. Crackpots like Perot and Ron Paul don't provide an honest alternative. Bloomberg? Please.

Tex · 07-19-2007, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueK

Which is what the majority of LDS Republicans are these days. It's like it's in vogue to claim to be "independent minded" but when it comes down to it, there are very few who are really like that.

Is it? I kinda subscribe to this idea that "independent" means "I can't make up my mind" or "I have no ideological roots."

I consider myself fair-minded in that I try to evaluate positions on their merits. In that sense, I suppose I'm independent. But I have no shame in admitting that my view has a partisan tint.

For some reason there are those who think "partisan" means "free from thought." That's a mistake.

Indy Coug · 07-19-2007, 06:09 PM

Let's put it this way: I can't remember the last time I saw a piece of legislation of any real import (i.e something other than jacking up Bin Laden's reward money to $50M) introduced by the Democrats that I thought was a good idea.

At least the Republicans come up with some from time to time, though they have a lot of problems too.

BlueK · 07-19-2007, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Give me a legitimate independent candidate and I'll vote for him/her. Crackpots like Perot and Ron Paul don't provide an honest alternative. Bloomberg? Please.

That's not really what I meant. I meant someone who truly swings one way or the other depending on the candidate or the issues. Everyone tries to claim to be that type of voter but almost no one really is.

BlueK · 07-19-2007, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex

Is it? I kinda subscribe to this idea that "independent" means "I can't make up my mind" or "I have no ideological roots."

I consider myself fair-minded in that I try to evaluate positions on their merits. In that sense, I suppose I'm independent. But I have no shame in admitting that my view has a partisan tint.

For some reason there are those who think "partisan" means "free from thought." That's a mistake.

you're not typical. Indy is more typical of the claim to be independent but really aren't mentality. And this doesn't apply to me. I'm pretty firm in my libertarian ideas so if I vote for one of the major party candidates it's because they fit my very well defined set of political values better than the other one does. Not all independents are push overs who have no values, it's that they have trouble finding one party or candidate who has the mix they're looking for. So they usually go with the lesser of two evils.

Cali Coug · 07-19-2007, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex

As I said, you were just being nit-picky.

It isn't being nit-picky. It is a simple request for you to provide evidence to support your proposition. I accept this post as confirmation that you can't provide that evidence and instead will retreat to the much narrower proposition I listed above.

Tex · 07-19-2007, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

It isn't being nit-picky. It is a simple request for you to provide evidence to support your proposition. I accept this post as confirmation that you can't provide that evidence and instead will retreat to the much narrower proposition I listed above.

I accept this post as your agreement that the reputation of lawyers as pencil-necked pinheads is entirely justified. Reminds me of a joke I'm sure you've heard:

In a murder trial, the defense attorney was cross-examining the coroner:

Attorney: Before you signed the death certificate, had you taken the pulse?

Coroner: No.

Attorney: Did you listen to the heart?

Coroner: No.

Attorney: Did you check for breathing?

Coroner: No.

Attorney: So, when you signed the death certificate, you weren't sure the man was dead, were you?

Coroner: Well, let me put it this way. The man's brain was sitting in a jar on my desk. But I guess it's possible he could be out there practicing law somewhere.

http://www.flipjokes.com/joke/127/brain_dead.html

07-19-2007, 06:09 PM	#46
Indy Coug Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Between Iraq and a hard place Posts: 7,569	Let's put it this way: I can't remember the last time I saw a piece of legislation of any real import (i.e something other than jacking up Bin Laden's reward money to $50M) introduced by the Democrats that I thought was a good idea. At least the Republicans come up with some from time to time, though they have a lot of problems too.