Comments on: Still Searching for Mitt http://mullentown.com/still-searching-for-mitt/ Home of Heart, Mind and Really Big Issues Sun, 23 Nov 2008 13:34:35 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.5 by: Obagi Blue Peel http://mullentown.com/still-searching-for-mitt/#comment-4548 Fri, 09 May 2008 18:48:51 +0000 http://mullentown.com/still-searching-for-mitt/#comment-4548 <strong>Obagi Blue Peel...</strong> I found your site on technorati and read a few of your other posts. Keep up the good work. I just added your RSS feed to my Google News Reader. Looking forward to reading more from you.... Obagi Blue Peel…

I found your site on technorati and read a few of your other posts. Keep up the good work. I just added your RSS feed to my Google News Reader. Looking forward to reading more from you….

]]> by: Granny Sex Videos http://mullentown.com/still-searching-for-mitt/#comment-3561 Mon, 12 Nov 2007 05:59:15 +0000 http://mullentown.com/still-searching-for-mitt/#comment-3561 <strong>Granny Sex Videos...</strong> Sorry, it just sounds like a crazy idea for me :)... Granny Sex Videos…

Sorry, it just sounds like a crazy idea for me :)…

]]> by: Cat Urine Remover http://mullentown.com/still-searching-for-mitt/#comment-3320 Sat, 08 Sep 2007 04:35:15 +0000 http://mullentown.com/still-searching-for-mitt/#comment-3320 <strong>cat urine odor...</strong> The best way to remove cat urine odors and stains...... cat urine odor…

The best way to remove cat urine odors and stains……

]]> by: soma next day http://mullentown.com/still-searching-for-mitt/#comment-312 Fri, 02 Mar 2007 15:48:11 +0000 http://mullentown.com/still-searching-for-mitt/#comment-312 <strong>soma next day...</strong> news... soma next day…

news…

]]> by: tramadol http://mullentown.com/still-searching-for-mitt/#comment-309 Fri, 02 Mar 2007 15:19:48 +0000 http://mullentown.com/still-searching-for-mitt/#comment-309 <strong>tramadol...</strong> news... tramadol…

news…

]]> by: c81a6082587f66c6698d3e5165510fd3 http://mullentown.com/still-searching-for-mitt/#comment-262 Wed, 28 Feb 2007 17:06:11 +0000 http://mullentown.com/still-searching-for-mitt/#comment-262 <strong>c81a6082587f66c6698d...</strong> c81a6082587f66c6698d3e5165510fd3c81a6082587f... c81a6082587f66c6698d…

c81a6082587f66c6698d3e5165510fd3c81a6082587f…

]]> by: gabespop http://mullentown.com/still-searching-for-mitt/#comment-166 Thu, 22 Feb 2007 17:47:34 +0000 http://mullentown.com/still-searching-for-mitt/#comment-166 Coltakashi is right about the left-wing agenda. Weakening Uncle Sam's ability to defend itself against Islamic Jihadists is one of our top priorities. However, what he (or she?) fails to mention is that after we've gained control of all branches of government, we'll all be way too busy smoking pot in the nude at gay weddings to care about the Jihadists. Coltakashi is right about the left-wing agenda. Weakening Uncle Sam’s ability to defend itself against Islamic Jihadists is one of our top priorities.
However, what he (or she?) fails to mention is that after we’ve gained control of all branches of government, we’ll all be way too busy smoking pot in the nude at gay weddings to care about the Jihadists.

]]> by: coltakashi http://mullentown.com/still-searching-for-mitt/#comment-153 Tue, 20 Feb 2007 21:25:17 +0000 http://mullentown.com/still-searching-for-mitt/#comment-153 Why are we treating certain political policy issues as if they were some kind of religious catechism? Unlike religion, where ideas are simply presented as part of the package, take it or leave it, public policy positions in a democracy are supposed to be conclusions arrived at through examination of evidence, dialogue with others, and reflection. They are per se things that can change and evolve over time, and in fact every blogger essay, every piece of campaign rhetoric that tries to persuade voters to adopt a certain position on a ballot proposal, is done in the expectation that people WILL change their minds, will decide that something they thought was reasonable and good before is now NOT a good idea. Why should we castigate any voter, or any candidate, for actually changing his or her mind, which is the essence of the marketplace of ideas in democracy and the fundamental basis for the First Amendment? If a politican has apparently taken a different position now than he took in debate 13 years ago, why shouldn't we assume that his earlier statements were made with 13 years less consideration of evidence and reasoning? Why is any politician supposed to be denied the opportunity to mature in his understanding of policies and their implications? After all, they are not religious prophets who are supposed to be infallible to begin with. Media writers and bloggers can develop in their thinking on any issue. They were probably sincere in what they said 10 years ago, but that prior statement was not legislation that barred them from ever changing their minds on that issue. If we adopted that "never change your mind" attitude in the courts, we would still have racial segregation and sex discrimination in the law. Frankly, I haven't seen any evidence that Romney has been inconsistent with his present policy positions from the positions he took during his campaign for the governorship four years ago or during his term in office. Additionally, those who oversimplify, with labels like "pro-choice" and "pro-life" on abortion, are linguistic simpletons. For example, are Mormons generally one or the other? Since Mormon teaching is that abortion should be allowed in some cases, radical anti-abortion groups picket the LDS General Conference with pictures of aborted fetuses and loudspeakers. But the exceptions are so limited that NARAL would certainly label Mormons as "anti-choice". My guess is that at least half of the Romney changes in position are really media oversimplifications of his statements. The fact is, other than treating those developments in his political statements over 10 years, and his Mormonism, the media can find nothing to criticize about Romney. He is smart, articulate, successful, a family man (unlike some other candidates), and apparently lives according to his beliefs (because if he didn't, we would have heard about it by now). By contrast, Giuliani literally couldn't get reelected Mayor of New York before 9/11 thrust him onto the national stage. John McCain is someone who has a strong reputation for ill temper, who has in my view violated the First Amendment with his bills controlling campaign contributions and even free speech by organizations during campaigns. The Democratic Party candidates are so beholden to the left wing of their party that their election will inevitably weaken the United States' ability to defend us against the growing threat of Islamic Jihadists. Of course, I am willing to be persuaded, by evidence and discussion, that I am wrong, and change my mind. We all have that right, including Mitt Romney. Why are we treating certain political policy issues as if they were some kind of religious catechism? Unlike religion, where ideas are simply presented as part of the package, take it or leave it, public policy positions in a democracy are supposed to be conclusions arrived at through examination of evidence, dialogue with others, and reflection. They are per se things that can change and evolve over time, and in fact every blogger essay, every piece of campaign rhetoric that tries to persuade voters to adopt a certain position on a ballot proposal, is done in the expectation that people WILL change their minds, will decide that something they thought was reasonable and good before is now NOT a good idea. Why should we castigate any voter, or any candidate, for actually changing his or her mind, which is the essence of the marketplace of ideas in democracy and the fundamental basis for the First Amendment?

If a politican has apparently taken a different position now than he took in debate 13 years ago, why shouldn’t we assume that his earlier statements were made with 13 years less consideration of evidence and reasoning? Why is any politician supposed to be denied the opportunity to mature in his understanding of policies and their implications? After all, they are not religious prophets who are supposed to be infallible to begin with.

Media writers and bloggers can develop in their thinking on any issue. They were probably sincere in what they said 10 years ago, but that prior statement was not legislation that barred them from ever changing their minds on that issue. If we adopted that “never change your mind” attitude in the courts, we would still have racial segregation and sex discrimination in the law.

Frankly, I haven’t seen any evidence that Romney has been inconsistent with his present policy positions from the positions he took during his campaign for the governorship four years ago or during his term in office. Additionally, those who oversimplify, with labels like “pro-choice” and “pro-life” on abortion, are linguistic simpletons. For example, are Mormons generally one or the other? Since Mormon teaching is that abortion should be allowed in some cases, radical anti-abortion groups picket the LDS General Conference with pictures of aborted fetuses and loudspeakers. But the exceptions are so limited that NARAL would certainly label Mormons as “anti-choice”. My guess is that at least half of the Romney changes in position are really media oversimplifications of his statements.

The fact is, other than treating those developments in his political statements over 10 years, and his Mormonism, the media can find nothing to criticize about Romney. He is smart, articulate, successful, a family man (unlike some other candidates), and apparently lives according to his beliefs (because if he didn’t, we would have heard about it by now).

By contrast, Giuliani literally couldn’t get reelected Mayor of New York before 9/11 thrust him onto the national stage. John McCain is someone who has a strong reputation for ill temper, who has in my view violated the First Amendment with his bills controlling campaign contributions and even free speech by organizations during campaigns. The Democratic Party candidates are so beholden to the left wing of their party that their election will inevitably weaken the United States’ ability to defend us against the growing threat of Islamic Jihadists.

Of course, I am willing to be persuaded, by evidence and discussion, that I am wrong, and change my mind. We all have that right, including Mitt Romney.

]]> by: Nic http://mullentown.com/still-searching-for-mitt/#comment-152 Tue, 20 Feb 2007 21:20:47 +0000 http://mullentown.com/still-searching-for-mitt/#comment-152 What's wrong with labeling an entire religious group as scary? It's his/her opinion. If you don't believe an entire religious group is scary, look up Fred Phelps and his ragtag bunch. THEY ARE SCARY! What’s wrong with labeling an entire religious group as scary? It’s his/her opinion.
If you don’t believe an entire religious group is scary, look up Fred Phelps and his ragtag bunch. THEY ARE SCARY!

]]> by: gabespop http://mullentown.com/still-searching-for-mitt/#comment-149 Tue, 20 Feb 2007 17:40:53 +0000 http://mullentown.com/still-searching-for-mitt/#comment-149 I agree with everything chardonnay said (I usually do). However, what in the hell is an "ethnic Utahn"?:-) My father-in-law spent the first 30 or so years of his life in Utah and the last 50 or so in Idaho. His parents moved to Utah about the time of WWI. He's "ethnic Japanese." (secular Buddist and a whiskey highball man, for the record). PS. I'm givin' you a bad time. I know what you mean. I lived in Santa Rosa for a while when I was a kid, by the way. Loved it. I agree with everything chardonnay said (I usually do). However, what in the hell is an “ethnic Utahn”?:-) My father-in-law spent the first 30 or so years of his life in Utah and the last 50 or so in Idaho. His parents moved to Utah about the time of WWI.

He’s “ethnic Japanese.” (secular Buddist and a whiskey highball man, for the record).

PS. I’m givin’ you a bad time. I know what you mean. I lived in Santa Rosa for a while when I was a kid, by the way. Loved it.

]]>