There's nothing new coming out of this debate so far.

Reading the transcripts, so yeah I don't know the context but four things stood out:

(1) Newt was asked about Gen. Dempsey (Chairman of the JCS) recently arguing that an Israeli pre-emptive stirke on Iran wouldn't be "prudent." Newt pretty much says the military don't know what they're talking about, he trusts Netanyahu more than the JCS. The other candidates (sans Paul) seem to agree. Total rerun of Iraq. How depressing.

(2) Mittens (yes Romney) saying twice that Iran plans to give a nuke to Hezbollah, who'll take it down to Mexico, and detonate it inside America's borders. Weird because wasn't the Latin American/Middle East terrorist "connection" a former Santorum campaign line?

Even if you favor a war w/ Iran, do you even believe this apocalyptic scenario? Israel a target of a nuclear Iran? OK I can understand that. But America? No sorry, no sale.

(3) I give Santorum props for calling out on Mittens' hypocrisy regarding his Olympic games which got federal earmarked and pegging him dead to rights as Dukakis 2.0 when Mittens brought up his fiscal conservative record. ("Dukakis balanced the budget for 10 years. Does that mean he should've been President? I don't think so.") Ouch.

(4) Mittens saying RomneyCare never mandated birth control coverage. Liar Liar...

Former NY Governor Pataki stated that last night's debate winner was President Obama.

I think he's right.

I should've known this was inevitable in this election season.

All Dead Mormons are now Gay!

http://alldeadmormonsarenowgay.com/

The irony in that link is, one one hand, certain people (like the ones who made that site) say we Mormons are full of hot air. But they're usually the same ones who make the biggest stink out of Mormons doing baptisms for the dead. Well, you can't have it both ways, so which is it? If we're full of crap, than it doesn't matter who we do proxy baptisms for. And what's really hilarious is the pretense these people make about giving a damn about those in the Holocaust being baptized when it's really just about them having a bone to pick with the Mormons. Just saying.

Here's my serious, legitimate question about that broad topic.

Why baptize Hitler? Surely there's enough bodies up there in the heavens that we could overlook certain people? If Mr. God thinks we've failed in the spiritual bureaucratical mandatory protocol, he can override and give him a ghost ticket.

(Would you want to share heaven with him? Who would?)

How to make a long answer as short as possible?

Mormons don't adhere to the only heaven or hell concept that other Christians do. Christ said, "in my Father's house are many mansions." Mormons believe there are actually three general degrees or kingdoms of glory - the celestial, terrestial, and telestial. I'll forego breaking that down more.

Mormons also don't believe in a neverending state of hell like other Christians do. There certainly is a hell. It's always been there, and always will be. So, in that sense, it is eternal. But somebody is only there until they've paid "every last farthing."

Somebody like Hitler is a classic example. He will have to suffer in Hell but, eventually, that suffering will have run it's course. Eventually, Mormons believe, even somebody like him will get to the point where - through the Atonement of Christ and the ordinances of his Church (of which baptism is one) - they are freed from the "buffetings of Satan." That doesn't mean they then get to enter into God's presence in the celestial kingdom. But somebody like Hitler, besides being resurrected, will eventually enter into the the lowest kingdom - the telestial kingdom.

Again, I say this, not to proselytize, but to clarify.

If you take your faith seriously I don't think you can get upset with other people taking their faith (or lack thereof) seriously. I don't agree with Wiesel on everything but once someone's gone leave them be. I would probably be upset too if I discovered someone else was claiming anything posthumously about loved ones.

What you're saying doesn't make much sense to me. It's like the self-proclaimed atheists who can never stop ranting on and on about how there isn't a God. They spend so much time and energy about something they profess to not even believe in.

If we Mormons are full of crap, than us doing proxy-baptisms for the deceased in our temples doesn't have ANY impact on ANYONE whatsoever. We're just going through the motions.

If some other church/religion deciding to start doing baptisms for the dead tomorrow, and wanted to do it for my great grandfather, I wouldn't think anything of it because I don't believe what they're doing has any efficacy anyway.

But we don't get to decide how other people should be offended. Wiesel and a few others are offended. It's their deceased relatives, not yours. Shouldn't that be enough to stop?

I understand why they're upset.

I mean all those victims, look at what was raped from them: their citizenship, their families, their finances,and finally their lives. Now they're (arguably) raped of their post-mortem dignity as well.

Surely such deep feelings of persecution and violation by a people can't just be lightly dismissed?

(Doesn't help that the LDS publicly agreed to stop the practice, unless the would-be baptized have Mormon ancestors, and allegedly they're still doing it. I stress allegedly.)

First, Wisel calling on Romney to make the LDS Church do or not do something is completely absurd. Romney is not a general authority in the Church. He has no say on these matters. And he would have just as little influence if he were U.S. President too. And, even more to the point, it's not up to the general authorities either. They get their marching orders too.

Second, this issue about baptizing Holocaust victims is older than dirt. The LDS Church and Jewish leaders came to an agreement years ago. Of course, that doesn't mean some names of Holocaust victims here and there don't get through when somebody submits them. But it's not intentional on part of the Church.

And that's the point. A name here or there will get through and it's usually not some Jewish group who finds out or causes the initial stink. It's some anti-Mormon group or some individual who has a bone to pick that brings attention to it under the pretense of giving a damn about Jewish Holocaust victims.

This is what I'm talking about...


Researcher Helen Radkey, a former Mormon who revealed the Wiesenthal baptisms, said this week she found Frank's name in proxy baptism records dated Feb. 18, showing the ritual was performed in the Santo Domingo Temple in the Dominican Republic.


"The Church keeps its word and is absolutely firm in its commitment to not accept the names of Holocaust victims for proxy baptism," the Salt Lake City-based church said. "It is distressing when an individual willfully violates the Church's policy and something that should be understood to be an offering based on love and respect becomes a source of contention."

http://news.yahoo.com/claim-surfaces-anne-frank-baptism-mormons-225543134.html

Now, this is quite curious. Some of us criticized Franklin Graham's attack on President Obama this past week. However, I just heard him on Greta state that if President Obama brought Israel and the Palestinians together he thinks they could reach a deal. That's not a ringing endorsement of the President, but it is some degree of an endorsement.

To be perfectly fair in Mr. Graham's defense, he loses nothing with that statement because those two sides won't meet each other, much less strike a deal.

~Plus it does give him some rhetorical defense after his rather public opinion. Not that he's wrong or I think less of him for doing so, but it's what I would do in his spot.

I call BS, but it's compelling none the less.



http://www.gregpalast.com/the-billionaires-brokered-gop-convention/#more-5723

Never happen.

MSNBC earlier was discussing the possibility of new entries to the GOP race and how if it were to happen it would likely be in March after and depending on MI primary. They listed names of possible candidates, including Chris Christie, Jeb Bush and others. Does anyone think this is beginning to be a real possibility for the GOP or is it wishful thinking on the media's part?



TIS

Oh, no, no, no.....it has NOTHING to do with picking a fight with Mormons; and it DOES matter who you do proxy babtisms for because it further propagates this centuries old idea that those who don't accept Christ (Jews in particular) are somehow incomplete, unholy or just plain wrong.

And that makes it VERY dangerous stuff, IMHO. (Not to say that I don't see your logic, Ivy. I respect you and your faith immensely.)

So that's where all the brains of that family generation went to.

Jeb Bush: 2012 GOP Candidates “appealing to people’s fears and emotion”



http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73242.html#ixzz1nJmr5ChQ

Jeb-Christie 2012?

Just fuckin' great. If one can't steal the election, the other will sit on your state and tip it over.

Wishful thinking TIS.

I agree, Oli. If Romney wins the nomination and they broker the convention anyway, all Hell will break loose and they know it.

I'm sticking to my guns by saying I still think it will be Romney-Rubio. And the only way the general election is even close is if the price of gas stymies whatever economic recovery we've been feeling.

And I have to say, that does make you think. Texas oil billionaires are so closely identified with Conservative Republicans, that if you're a conspiracy theorist you have to wonder why the price of gas is going up now.

I'm surprised liberal blogs haven't already been running headlines (disguising conspiracy theories) of a Republican-Iranian alliance against Obama.

"Tehran wants Romney to win!"

(Remember when GOPers claimed Bin Laden was rooting for Obama? Yeah I think Bin Laden realizes now he bet on the wrong horse. )

Mittens had his "big" economic speech today in Detroit, and...well, blame the media and blame Team Mittens for this visual being the story today.





Though to be fair, WSJ and right-wing blogs are having a laugh over this too.

http://yfrog.com/gyvmbeyj

EDIT - take it with much salt considering the news source, but MSNBC claims that this event was supposed to take place at a much smaller venue (more appropriate for the 1000+ people there) but changed at the last minute to Ford Field. The decision allegedly was made by Mittens.

You all know my lack of respect for MSNBC (and Fox News), so I'm not taking this "report" as fact just yet. To say the least.

Wow same day, another speech background gaffe but for the other party.



Can't blame him. Biden not saying something stupid is...boring.

I'd rather have one hundred more years of Obama than give Mitt Romney the satisfaction of being President for even one second...I can't stand that son of a bitch.

Like when he grabbed Rick Perry in the middle of a debate and then the lefty media painted it as 'erratic Rick Perry about to punch Mitt Romney !!' because they know Romney's a liberal who will probably roll over for Obama in November anyway. And Romney knows that and exploits it to his advantage.

Or the other night in the debate when the final question asked 'what is the public's biggest misconception about you?' and instead of even remotely answering the question Romney breaks into the same ole 'we need smaller government, lower deficit, I saved the Olympics' blah blah rhetoric that we've heard a MILLION times from him.

Or the 'I can tell the model and make of a car just by looking at one square foot of the body', how ridiculous is that.

The list goes on...

Or they mine as well "Sit on their Hands" right SC