Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Mitt Romney Explain How Jesus Will Reign for 1,000 Years When He Returns, in Jerusalem... and Missouri

Expand Messages
  • Anna
    Watch Mitt Romney Explain How Jesus Will Reign for 1,000 Years When He Returns, in Jerusalem... and Missouri Video emerges of Romney citing the thinking of a
    Message 1 of 21 , Nov 2, 2012
    • 0 Attachment

      Watch Mitt Romney Explain How Jesus Will Reign for 1,000 Years When He Returns, in Jerusalem... and Missouri

      Video emerges of Romney citing the thinking of a wildly fringe conspiracy theorist and his belief in the strange intricacies of the Mormon faith.
      November 2, 2012 |

      Watch Mitt Romney get in a heated exchange with a radio host from a radio interview in 2008 about where Jesus will reign and rule over the Earth for 1,000 years -- in Jerusalem and Missouri. Romney displays deep familiarity with the thinking of a Mormon hermit-conspiracy theorist Cleon Skousen, who was also Glenn Beck's great inspiration.

      Background from Prisoner Minister: "Mormons believe Jesus will return to earth in Independence, Missouri to begin a 1,000 year reign. They think Mormons will at that time become gods. But before the return of Jesus, they believe the United States will come to a constitutional crisis, on the verge of collapse. They believe America will be saved by a Mormon leader. The founder of the Mormon religion, Joseph Smith, said, "The time will come when the destiny of the nation (USA) will hang upon a single thread. At that critical juncture, this people (Mormons) will save it from destruction." Their prophet Brigham Young said, "When the Kingdom of God bears rule, the flag of the United States will proudly flutter." Mormons, also called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), believe the Kingdom of God will arise from the rule of one man on earth, a political figure who will also be their spiritual leader. They believe there will be a one-world government ruled by this god-king. He will be a prophet and high priest of the Mormon faith, ruling the world from America."

      Bruce Wilson for Talk2Action writes about the interview:
      "...The former Massachusetts governor endorsed The Making of America, by fringe New World Order conspiracy theorist Cleon Skousen, a former Brigham Young University professor of Romney's, and also cited Skousen's opinions concerning the question of the Second Coming. Here's video of the interchange--which Mitt Romney may have difficulty explaining, especially in context of his carefully coiffed persona as a moderate Republican.
      As covered by Media Matters, in The Making of America Skousen claimed that slave owners were the true "victims" of the institution of slavery:
      Skousen is the author of several controversial works, including The Making of America: The Substance and Meaning of the Constitution, which presented as "the story of slavery in America" a passage from a book that attacked abolitionists for delaying emancipation; cast slave owners as "the worst victims of the system"; claimed white schoolchildren "were likely to envy the freedom of their colored playmates"; and claimed that "[s]lavery did not make white labor unrespectable, but merely inefficient," because "the slave had a deliberateness of motion which no amount of supervision could quicken."

      The Washington Independent's Dave Weigel was one of several media commenters who back in 2009 picked up this remarkable but now largely forgotten story, in a post noting that Texas governor Rick Perry had cited Skousen's book The 5,000 Year Leap while speaking at the 2009 Family Research Council 'Voter Values Summit' in Washington DC. Wondering why Cleon Skousen, recently exhumed from obscurity by Glenn Beck, had suddenly become so popular among leading GOP politicians, Weigel wrote,

      "Perry's comments reminded me of a forgotten moment from the 2008 campaign, when Mitt Romney got into a heated exchange with a radio host who had theological objections to Mormonism. A grainy video of that exchange is here.

      "Cleon Skousen has a book called `A Thousand Years,'" said Romney, arguing against the rumor that he believed the Second Coming would happen in Missouri. "Christ appears, it's throughout the Bible, Christ appears in Jerusalem, splits the Mount of Olives to stop the war that's coming to kill all the Jews. Our church believes that."

      It's strange to hear prominent national Republicans telling people to read Skousen."

      The incident, from a 2008 Romney appearance on an Iowa radio show, was alsodiscussed by Mark Hemingway of National Review Online, who described,

      "You and I share a common affection for the late Cleon Skousen," the radio host says. The former governor agrees, affirming Skousen was his professor and when the radio host professes his fondness for Skousen's book The Making of America, while he acknowledges he hasn't read it, Mitt quickly says "That's worth reading."

      Hemingway provides some useful background on how fringe, in ideological terms, Cleon Skousen truly was:

      "Skousen's Communist paranoia may have reached it's apotheosis in 1970 when the Mormon church and BYU in particular began receiving a tremendous amount of external pressure to change the church's policy on denying the Mormon priesthood to blacks. Skousen, then a professor at BYU, published an article entitled "The Communist Attack on the Mormons" and noted that critics were employing Communist tactics which were "distorting the religious tenet of the Church regarding the Negro and blowing it up to ridiculous proportions." The Mormon Church reversed course on its discriminatory practices in 1978 and began ordaining black men to the priesthood.

      Later in the 70s, Skousen accused the Council on Foreign Relations and the Rockefellers of puppeteering the election of Jimmy Carter to pave the way for One World Government, his new favorite topic. Things got so bad that the Mormon Church eventually issued an official communiqué distancing itself from Skousen's organization, the Freemen Institute."

      But what does it mean? How much weight should we give Romney's endorsement of Skousen's writing? Hemingway opines,

      "...in the video Governor Romney demonstrates more than a passing familiarity with Skousen's work...

      I sincerely doubt that Mitt Romney believes anything near as outlandish as many of the things Cleon Skousen espoused, and to be fair Skousen wrote on numerous topics with wildly varying degrees of intellectual sobriety. In fact, as the radio host in the YouTube video notes, Skousen's writings on original intent and the U.S. Constitution in The Making of America are compellingly argued, and to this day are often cited by conservatives unaware of Skousen's more checkered writings."

      Hemingway seems, however, to be unaware of Skousen's virulent views on slavery evinced in The Makings of America, and his treatment elides the context of Romney's plug for Skousen--the Second Coming which, as we well know, drags in the battle of Armageddon. Skousen's eschatological views don't get much notice, but Mitt Romney would seem to hold them in high regard.

      But there's another side to the story. As Talk To Action co-founder Frederick Clarksonnoted back in 2007, Mitt Romney drags some troublesome liberal baggage along with his penchant for Cleon Skousen:

      He has not received as much support from the religious right as he had hoped. He has sought to be acceptable to conservatives and at the same time not-too-scary to moderates. He has also emphasized his recent conversion from being prochoice to being prolife, and sought to obscure his past support for gay and lesbian civil rights while emphasizing his position opposing marriage equality. During the recent GOP candidate debate in Florida, he refused to say, as he once did, that he looks forward to the day when gays and lesbians can serve openly in the military. Many -- especially many of us who live in Massachusetts -- take him as having few, if any, deep convictions. And (as far as I know) with the exception of Paul Weyrich, no major religious right leader is supporting him."

      It's easy to envision Romney, as a candidate, pandering to the ideological fanaticism that has gripped the Republican Party and, were he to win the nomination, picking a true believer such as Michele Bachmann as a running mate, to shore up his evangelical base. And, in that context, Romney's penchant for Cleon Skousen might not be such a liability; it might even get him onto the Glenn Beck show.

      http://www.alternet.org/belief/watch-mitt-romney-explain-how-jesus-will-reign-1000-years-when-he-returns-jerusalem-and?akid=9639.317247.r1byhN&rd=1&src=newsletter737799&t=5&paging=off

       

    • clarence_sonny_williams
      Absolutely, Mormonism entails bizarre beliefs. Doesn t all religion entail such bizarre beliefs? That is why the U.S. Constitution affords us the greatest
      Message 2 of 21 , Nov 3, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Absolutely, Mormonism entails bizarre beliefs. Doesn't all religion
        entail such bizarre beliefs? That is why the U.S. Constitution affords
        us the greatest protection from religious beliefs. Governments at all
        levels must be perfectly secular. The U.S. Constitution affords far
        less protection from governments doing things against our wishes
        vis-a-vis "interstate commerce" and other economic affairs. That is why
        one's vote should be cast for the administration you believe is taking
        the correct course from an economic standpoint, not from some silly
        notion of whose religion you least like.

        --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "Anna" <pantheon@...>
        wrote:
        >
        > Watch Mitt Romney Explain How Jesus Will Reign for 1,000 Years When He
        Returns, in Jerusalem... and Missouri
        > Video emerges of Romney citing the thinking of a wildly fringe
        conspiracy theorist and his belief in the strange intricacies of the
        Mormon faith.
        > November 2, 2012 | Watch Mitt Romney get in a heated exchange with a
        radio host from a radio interview in 2008 about where Jesus will reign
        and rule over the Earth for 1,000 years -- in Jerusalem and Missouri.
        Romney displays deep familiarity with the thinking of a Mormon
        hermit-conspiracy theorist Cleon Skousen, who was also Glenn Beck's
        great inspiration.
        >
        > Background from Prisoner Minister: "Mormons believe Jesus will return
        to earth in Independence, Missouri to begin a 1,000 year reign. They
        think Mormons will at that time become gods. But before the return of
        Jesus, they believe the United States will come to a constitutional
        crisis, on the verge of collapse. They believe America will be saved by
        a Mormon leader. The founder of the Mormon religion, Joseph Smith, said,
        "The time will come when the destiny of the nation (USA) will hang upon
        a single thread. At that critical juncture, this people (Mormons) will
        save it from destruction." Their prophet Brigham Young said, "When the
        Kingdom of God bears rule, the flag of the United States will proudly
        flutter." Mormons, also called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
        Saints (LDS Church), believe the Kingdom of God will arise from the rule
        of one man on earth, a political figure who will also be their spiritual
        leader. They believe there will be a one-world government ruled by this
        god-king. He will be a prophet and high priest of the Mormon faith,
        ruling the world from America."
        >
        > Bruce Wilson for Talk2Action writes about the interview:
        > "...The former Massachusetts governor endorsed The Making of America,
        by fringe New World Order conspiracy theorist Cleon Skousen, a former
        Brigham Young University professor of Romney's, and also cited Skousen's
        opinions concerning the question of the Second Coming. Here's video of
        the interchange--which Mitt Romney may have difficulty explaining,
        especially in context of his carefully coiffed persona as a moderate
        Republican.
        > As covered by Media Matters, in The Making of America Skousen claimed
        that slave owners were the true "victims" of the institution of slavery:
        > Skousen is the author of several controversial works, including The
        Making of America: The Substance and Meaning of the Constitution, which
        presented as "the story of slavery in America" a passage from a book
        that attacked abolitionists for delaying emancipation; cast slave owners
        as "the worst victims of the system"; claimed white schoolchildren "were
        likely to envy the freedom of their colored playmates"; and claimed that
        "[s]lavery did not make white labor unrespectable, but merely
        inefficient," because "the slave had a deliberateness of motion which no
        amount of supervision could quicken."
        > The Washington Independent's Dave Weigel was one of several media
        commenters who back in 2009 picked up this remarkable but now largely
        forgotten story, in a post noting that Texas governor Rick Perry had
        cited Skousen's book The 5,000 Year Leap while speaking at the 2009
        Family Research Council 'Voter Values Summit' in Washington DC.
        Wondering why Cleon Skousen, recently exhumed from obscurity by Glenn
        Beck, had suddenly become so popular among leading GOP politicians,
        Weigel wrote,
        >
        >
        > "Perry's comments reminded me of a forgotten moment from the 2008
        campaign, when Mitt Romney got into a heated exchange with a radio host
        who had theological objections to Mormonism. A grainy video of that
        exchange is here.
        > "Cleon Skousen has a book called `A Thousand Years,'" said Romney,
        arguing against the rumor that he believed the Second Coming would
        happen in Missouri. "Christ appears, it's throughout the Bible, Christ
        appears in Jerusalem, splits the Mount of Olives to stop the war that's
        coming to kill all the Jews. Our church believes that."
        >
        > It's strange to hear prominent national Republicans telling people
        to read Skousen."
        >
        > The incident, from a 2008 Romney appearance on an Iowa radio show, was
        alsodiscussed by Mark Hemingway of National Review Online, who
        described,
        >
        >
        > "You and I share a common affection for the late Cleon Skousen," the
        radio host says. The former governor agrees, affirming Skousen was his
        professor and when the radio host professes his fondness for Skousen's
        book The Making of America, while he acknowledges he hasn't read it,
        Mitt quickly says "That's worth reading."
        > Hemingway provides some useful background on how fringe, in
        ideological terms, Cleon Skousen truly was:
        >
        >
        > "Skousen's Communist paranoia may have reached it's apotheosis in
        1970 when the Mormon church and BYU in particular began receiving a
        tremendous amount of external pressure to change the church's policy on
        denying the Mormon priesthood to blacks. Skousen, then a professor at
        BYU, published an article entitled "The Communist Attack on the Mormons"
        and noted that critics were employing Communist tactics which were
        "distorting the religious tenet of the Church regarding the Negro and
        blowing it up to ridiculous proportions." The Mormon Church reversed
        course on its discriminatory practices in 1978 and began ordaining black
        men to the priesthood.
        > Later in the 70s, Skousen accused the Council on Foreign Relations
        and the Rockefellers of puppeteering the election of Jimmy Carter to
        pave the way for One World Government, his new favorite topic. Things
        got so bad that the Mormon Church eventually issued an official
        communiqué distancing itself from Skousen's organization, the Freemen
        Institute."
        >
        > But what does it mean? How much weight should we give Romney's
        endorsement of Skousen's writing? Hemingway opines,
        >
        >
        > "...in the video Governor Romney demonstrates more than a passing
        familiarity with Skousen's work...
        > I sincerely doubt that Mitt Romney believes anything near as
        outlandish as many of the things Cleon Skousen espoused, and to be fair
        Skousen wrote on numerous topics with wildly varying degrees of
        intellectual sobriety. In fact, as the radio host in the YouTube video
        notes, Skousen's writings on original intent and the U.S. Constitution
        in The Making of America are compellingly argued, and to this day are
        often cited by conservatives unaware of Skousen's more checkered
        writings."
        >
        > Hemingway seems, however, to be unaware of Skousen's virulent views on
        slavery evinced in The Makings of America, and his treatment elides the
        context of Romney's plug for Skousen--the Second Coming which, as we
        well know, drags in the battle of Armageddon. Skousen's eschatological
        views don't get much notice, but Mitt Romney would seem to hold them in
        high regard.
        >
        > But there's another side to the story. As Talk To Action co-founder
        Frederick Clarksonnoted back in 2007, Mitt Romney drags some troublesome
        liberal baggage along with his penchant for Cleon Skousen:
        >
        > He has not received as much support from the religious right as he
        had hoped. He has sought to be acceptable to conservatives and at the
        same time not-too-scary to moderates. He has also emphasized his recent
        conversion from being prochoice to being prolife, and sought to obscure
        his past support for gay and lesbian civil rights while emphasizing his
        position opposing marriage equality. During the recent GOP candidate
        debate in Florida, he refused to say, as he once did, that he looks
        forward to the day when gays and lesbians can serve openly in the
        military. Many -- especially many of us who live in Massachusetts --
        take him as having few, if any, deep convictions. And (as far as I know)
        with the exception of Paul Weyrich, no major religious right leader is
        supporting him."
        > It's easy to envision Romney, as a candidate, pandering to the
        ideological fanaticism that has gripped the Republican Party and, were
        he to win the nomination, picking a true believer such as Michele
        Bachmann as a running mate, to shore up his evangelical base. And, in
        that context, Romney's penchant for Cleon Skousen might not be such a
        liability; it might even get him onto the Glenn Beck show.
        >
        >
        http://www.alternet.org/belief/watch-mitt-romney-explain-how-jesus-will-\
        reign-1000-years-when-he-returns-jerusalem-and?akid=9639.317247.r1byhN&r\
        d=1&src=newsletter737799&t=5&paging=off
        >
      • Maarten
        Unless I m very mistaken, this is an election of a president, not of a government...And what s striking to me in this video is not only hos Moronic beliefs,
        Message 3 of 21 , Nov 3, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          Unless I'm very mistaken, this is an election of a president, not of a government...
          And what's striking to me in this video is not only hos Moronic beliefs, but also how he responds to the interviewer.
          Sonny, seriously, would you like this man handle unespected catastrophic events?

          Here's some folks of his own party think of him:


          I know you think Obama is a lyer, and you're probably right (can't go very far in politics without lying).
          But his lying pales (sorry, very bad pun) in comparison to Romney's ; I think that a large majority would say a similar thing.

          Maarten


          --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "clarence_sonny_williams" <clarencew@...> wrote:
          >
          > Absolutely, Mormonism entails bizarre beliefs. Doesn't all religion
          > entail such bizarre beliefs? That is why the U.S. Constitution affords
          > us the greatest protection from religious beliefs. Governments at all
          > levels must be perfectly secular. The U.S. Constitution affords far
          > less protection from governments doing things against our wishes
          > vis-a-vis "interstate commerce" and other economic affairs. That is why
          > one's vote should be cast for the administration you believe is taking
          > the correct course from an economic standpoint, not from some silly
          > notion of whose religion you least like.
          >
          > --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "Anna" pantheon@
          > wrote:
          > >
          > > Watch Mitt Romney Explain How Jesus Will Reign for 1,000 Years When He
          > Returns, in Jerusalem... and Missouri
          > > Video emerges of Romney citing the thinking of a wildly fringe
          > conspiracy theorist and his belief in the strange intricacies of the
          > Mormon faith.
          > > November 2, 2012 | Watch Mitt Romney get in a heated exchange with a
          > radio host from a radio interview in 2008 about where Jesus will reign
          > and rule over the Earth for 1,000 years -- in Jerusalem and Missouri.
          > Romney displays deep familiarity with the thinking of a Mormon
          > hermit-conspiracy theorist Cleon Skousen, who was also Glenn Beck's
          > great inspiration.
          > >
          > > Background from Prisoner Minister: "Mormons believe Jesus will return
          > to earth in Independence, Missouri to begin a 1,000 year reign. They
          > think Mormons will at that time become gods. But before the return of
          > Jesus, they believe the United States will come to a constitutional
          > crisis, on the verge of collapse. They believe America will be saved by
          > a Mormon leader. The founder of the Mormon religion, Joseph Smith, said,
          > "The time will come when the destiny of the nation (USA) will hang upon
          > a single thread. At that critical juncture, this people (Mormons) will
          > save it from destruction." Their prophet Brigham Young said, "When the
          > Kingdom of God bears rule, the flag of the United States will proudly
          > flutter." Mormons, also called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
          > Saints (LDS Church), believe the Kingdom of God will arise from the rule
          > of one man on earth, a political figure who will also be their spiritual
          > leader. They believe there will be a one-world government ruled by this
          > god-king. He will be a prophet and high priest of the Mormon faith,
          > ruling the world from America."
          > >
          > > Bruce Wilson for Talk2Action writes about the interview:
          > > "...The former Massachusetts governor endorsed The Making of America,
          > by fringe New World Order conspiracy theorist Cleon Skousen, a former
          > Brigham Young University professor of Romney's, and also cited Skousen's
          > opinions concerning the question of the Second Coming. Here's video of
          > the interchange--which Mitt Romney may have difficulty explaining,
          > especially in context of his carefully coiffed persona as a moderate
          > Republican.
          > > As covered by Media Matters, in The Making of America Skousen claimed
          > that slave owners were the true "victims" of the institution of slavery:
          > > Skousen is the author of several controversial works, including The
          > Making of America: The Substance and Meaning of the Constitution, which
          > presented as "the story of slavery in America" a passage from a book
          > that attacked abolitionists for delaying emancipation; cast slave owners
          > as "the worst victims of the system"; claimed white schoolchildren "were
          > likely to envy the freedom of their colored playmates"; and claimed that
          > "[s]lavery did not make white labor unrespectable, but merely
          > inefficient," because "the slave had a deliberateness of motion which no
          > amount of supervision could quicken."
          > > The Washington Independent's Dave Weigel was one of several media
          > commenters who back in 2009 picked up this remarkable but now largely
          > forgotten story, in a post noting that Texas governor Rick Perry had
          > cited Skousen's book The 5,000 Year Leap while speaking at the 2009
          > Family Research Council 'Voter Values Summit' in Washington DC.
          > Wondering why Cleon Skousen, recently exhumed from obscurity by Glenn
          > Beck, had suddenly become so popular among leading GOP politicians,
          > Weigel wrote,
          > >
          > >
          > > "Perry's comments reminded me of a forgotten moment from the 2008
          > campaign, when Mitt Romney got into a heated exchange with a radio host
          > who had theological objections to Mormonism. A grainy video of that
          > exchange is here.
          > > "Cleon Skousen has a book called `A Thousand Years,'" said Romney,
          > arguing against the rumor that he believed the Second Coming would
          > happen in Missouri. "Christ appears, it's throughout the Bible, Christ
          > appears in Jerusalem, splits the Mount of Olives to stop the war that's
          > coming to kill all the Jews. Our church believes that."
          > >
          > > It's strange to hear prominent national Republicans telling people
          > to read Skousen."
          > >
          > > The incident, from a 2008 Romney appearance on an Iowa radio show, was
          > alsodiscussed by Mark Hemingway of National Review Online, who
          > described,
          > >
          > >
          > > "You and I share a common affection for the late Cleon Skousen," the
          > radio host says. The former governor agrees, affirming Skousen was his
          > professor and when the radio host professes his fondness for Skousen's
          > book The Making of America, while he acknowledges he hasn't read it,
          > Mitt quickly says "That's worth reading."
          > > Hemingway provides some useful background on how fringe, in
          > ideological terms, Cleon Skousen truly was:
          > >
          > >
          > > "Skousen's Communist paranoia may have reached it's apotheosis in
          > 1970 when the Mormon church and BYU in particular began receiving a
          > tremendous amount of external pressure to change the church's policy on
          > denying the Mormon priesthood to blacks. Skousen, then a professor at
          > BYU, published an article entitled "The Communist Attack on the Mormons"
          > and noted that critics were employing Communist tactics which were
          > "distorting the religious tenet of the Church regarding the Negro and
          > blowing it up to ridiculous proportions." The Mormon Church reversed
          > course on its discriminatory practices in 1978 and began ordaining black
          > men to the priesthood.
          > > Later in the 70s, Skousen accused the Council on Foreign Relations
          > and the Rockefellers of puppeteering the election of Jimmy Carter to
          > pave the way for One World Government, his new favorite topic. Things
          > got so bad that the Mormon Church eventually issued an official
          > communiqué distancing itself from Skousen's organization, the Freemen
          > Institute."
          > >
          > > But what does it mean? How much weight should we give Romney's
          > endorsement of Skousen's writing? Hemingway opines,
          > >
          > >
          > > "...in the video Governor Romney demonstrates more than a passing
          > familiarity with Skousen's work...
          > > I sincerely doubt that Mitt Romney believes anything near as
          > outlandish as many of the things Cleon Skousen espoused, and to be fair
          > Skousen wrote on numerous topics with wildly varying degrees of
          > intellectual sobriety. In fact, as the radio host in the YouTube video
          > notes, Skousen's writings on original intent and the U.S. Constitution
          > in The Making of America are compellingly argued, and to this day are
          > often cited by conservatives unaware of Skousen's more checkered
          > writings."
          > >
          > > Hemingway seems, however, to be unaware of Skousen's virulent views on
          > slavery evinced in The Makings of America, and his treatment elides the
          > context of Romney's plug for Skousen--the Second Coming which, as we
          > well know, drags in the battle of Armageddon. Skousen's eschatological
          > views don't get much notice, but Mitt Romney would seem to hold them in
          > high regard.
          > >
          > > But there's another side to the story. As Talk To Action co-founder
          > Frederick Clarksonnoted back in 2007, Mitt Romney drags some troublesome
          > liberal baggage along with his penchant for Cleon Skousen:
          > >
          > > He has not received as much support from the religious right as he
          > had hoped. He has sought to be acceptable to conservatives and at the
          > same time not-too-scary to moderates. He has also emphasized his recent
          > conversion from being prochoice to being prolife, and sought to obscure
          > his past support for gay and lesbian civil rights while emphasizing his
          > position opposing marriage equality. During the recent GOP candidate
          > debate in Florida, he refused to say, as he once did, that he looks
          > forward to the day when gays and lesbians can serve openly in the
          > military. Many -- especially many of us who live in Massachusetts --
          > take him as having few, if any, deep convictions. And (as far as I know)
          > with the exception of Paul Weyrich, no major religious right leader is
          > supporting him."
          > > It's easy to envision Romney, as a candidate, pandering to the
          > ideological fanaticism that has gripped the Republican Party and, were
          > he to win the nomination, picking a true believer such as Michele
          > Bachmann as a running mate, to shore up his evangelical base. And, in
          > that context, Romney's penchant for Cleon Skousen might not be such a
          > liability; it might even get him onto the Glenn Beck show.
          > >
          > >
          > http://www.alternet.org/belief/watch-mitt-romney-explain-how-jesus-will-\
          > reign-1000-years-when-he-returns-jerusalem-and?akid=9639.317247.r1byhN&r\
          > d=1&src=newsletter737799&t=5&paging=off
          > >
          >
        • clarence_sonny_williams
          Maarten, Yes, we are electing a new administration, a turnover in the executive branch of government. Nonetheless, my reference to the
          Message 4 of 21 , Nov 4, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            Maarten,

            Yes, we are electing a new "administration," a turnover in the executive
            branch of government. Nonetheless, my reference to the
            Constitutionally-mandated secular operation applies to not only all 3
            branches of the federal government, but to every single governmental
            entity from school districts to the Presidency.

            As you will learn when the votes are counted, it is incorrect to say
            that the "vast majority" of Americans mistrust Romney, that they believe
            he lies more than Obama. The populace is split right down the middle.
            Yes, sadly, all politicians lie, or rather free themselves from earlier
            commitments once elected.

            Yes, I trust Romney more than Obama to handle the unexpected. His
            experience vastly outweighs Obama's, whose experience is limited to
            social work at the street level...and in Chicago of all places. I have lived and worked there, and it is a real viper pit.

            --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "Maarten"
            <m.aalberse@...> wrote:
            >
            > Unless I'm very mistaken, this is an election of a president, not of a
            > government...And what's striking to me in this video is not only hos
            > Moronic beliefs, but also how he responds to the interviewer.Sonny,
            > seriously, would you like this man handle unespected catastrophic
            > events?
            > Here's some folks of his own party think of him:
            > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRJa2OaiwWw
            > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRJa2OaiwWw>
            > I know you think Obama is a lyer, and you're probably right (can't go
            > very far in politics without lying).But his lying pales (sorry, very
            bad
            > pun) in comparison to Romney's ; I think that a large majority would
            say
            > a similar thing.
            > Maarten
            >
            <snip>
          • Robert Karl Stonjek
            ... From: clarence_sonny_williams To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2012 11:33 PM Subject: Re: Mitt Romney Explain How
            Message 5 of 21 , Nov 4, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              ----- Original Message -----
              Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2012 11:33 PM
              Subject: Re: Mitt Romney Explain How Jesus Will Reign for 1,000 Years When He Returns, in Jerusalem... and Missouri

              Maarten,

              Yes, we are electing a new "administration," a turnover in the executive
              branch of government.  Nonetheless, my reference to the
              Constitutionally-mandated secular operation applies to not only all 3
              branches of the federal government, but to every single governmental
              entity from school districts to the Presidency.

              As you will learn when the votes are counted, it is incorrect to say
              that the "vast majority" of Americans mistrust Romney, that they believe
              he lies more than Obama.  The populace is split right down the middle.
              Yes, sadly, all politicians lie, or rather free themselves from earlier
              commitments once elected.

              Yes, I trust Romney more than Obama to handle the unexpected.  His
              experience vastly outweighs Obama's, whose experience is limited to
              social work at the street level...and in Chicago of all places.  I have
              lived and worked there, and it is a real viper pit.
               
              RKS:
              It is interesting that you would count only Obama's experience when he ran for the presidency the first time.  He now has four years experience of running the country as president so, as far as experience goes, a sitting president always has more experience than a candidate who has never been part of a presidential administration in any capacity.
               
              I note also that Mitt Romney was passed over in favour of Sarah Palin as the vice presidential running mate in the last presidential election, which seems to indicate how much confidence the Republican party hierarchy had in him at that time...
               
              It will be all over in a couple of days, thank goodness :)  (I hope you Americans are happy with your choice regardless of whom you choose :)
               
              Robert
            • Brad
              Robert said: I note also that Mitt Romney was passed over in favour of Sarah Palin as the vice presidential running mate in the last presidential election
              Message 6 of 21 , Nov 4, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                Robert said:
                'I note also that Mitt Romney was passed over in favour of Sarah Palin as the vice presidential running mate in the last presidential election"


                The only reason the Republicans used Sarah Palin was because they needed a woman to compete. She ended up being more of an embarrassment than anything else however. The harsh reality was that no one was going to vote for the aging McCain while she was the next in line.
                 
                Brad
                Chance Favors The Prepared Mind~ L Pasteur


                From: Robert Karl Stonjek <stonjek@...>
                To: Evolutionary-Psychology <evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com>
                Sent: Sunday, November 4, 2012 10:17 AM
                Subject: [evol-psych] Re: Mitt Romney Explain How Jesus Will Reign for 1,000 Years When He Returns, in Jerusalem... and Missouri

                 
                ----- Original Message -----
                Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2012 11:33 PM
                Subject: Re: Mitt Romney Explain How Jesus Will Reign for 1,000 Years When He Returns, in Jerusalem... and Missouri

                Maarten,

                Yes, we are electing a new "administration," a turnover in the executive
                branch of government.  Nonetheless, my reference to the
                Constitutionally-mandated secular operation applies to not only all 3
                branches of the federal government, but to every single governmental
                entity from school districts to the Presidency.

                As you will learn when the votes are counted, it is incorrect to say
                that the "vast majority" of Americans mistrust Romney, that they believe
                he lies more than Obama.  The populace is split right down the middle.
                Yes, sadly, all politicians lie, or rather free themselves from earlier
                commitments once elected.

                Yes, I trust Romney more than Obama to handle the unexpected.  His
                experience vastly outweighs Obama's, whose experience is limited to
                social work at the street level...and in Chicago of all places.  I have
                lived and worked there, and it is a real viper pit.
                 
                RKS:
                It is interesting that you would count only Obama's experience when he ran for the presidency the first time.  He now has four years experience of running the country as president so, as far as experience goes, a sitting president always has more experience than a candidate who has never been part of a presidential administration in any capacity.
                 
                I note also that Mitt Romney was passed over in favour of Sarah Palin as the vice presidential running mate in the last presidential election, which seems to indicate how much confidence the Republican party hierarchy had in him at that time...
                 
                It will be all over in a couple of days, thank goodness :)  (I hope you Americans are happy with your choice regardless of whom you choose :)
                 
                Robert


              • Don Zimmerman
                ... DWZ: A large part of the American electorate believes that the President is an independent actor who decisively takes charge of government upon being
                Message 7 of 21 , Nov 4, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Karl Stonjek" <stonjek@...> wrote:

                  > It is interesting that you would count only Obama's experience when he ran for the presidency the first time. He now has four years experience of running the country as president so, as far as experience goes, a sitting president always has more experience than a candidate who has never been part of a presidential administration in any capacity.
                  >
                  > I note also that Mitt Romney was passed over in favour of Sarah Palin as the vice presidential running mate in the last presidential election, which seems to indicate how much confidence the Republican party hierarchy had in him at that time...
                  >
                  > It will be all over in a couple of days, thank goodness :) (I hope you Americans are happy with your choice regardless of whom you choose :)


                  DWZ:
                  A large part of the American electorate believes that the President is an independent actor who decisively takes charge of government upon being elected and whose inner personal qualities and force of will are responsible for the course of events. That is far from the truth. Actually, the composition of the Senate and the House of Representatives plays an equal role in what gets done. Without the cooperation of those bodies, the President is a "lame duck" at the beginning, not just at the end. Unfortunately, too many voters are not of aware of those facts.

                  And the President from the first day in office is surrounded by a network of advisors, appointees, cabinet members, lobbyists, that also are most important in decision making. It is true that many of those advisors are chosen by the President, but the choice is not completely free and voluntary, because payback for financial contributions, the need for Senate approval, the public's perception of the other people in government, etc., also factor into the picture.

                  Finally, circumstances in the world, completely beyond the President's control, also have a lot to do with the history of the nation during a term of office. The various wars around the world, unusual weather events, famines, earthquakes, shortages, epidemics of disease, uprisings in other nations, global warming, meteor strikes, etc., can shape many events apart from the determination and heroism of any President.

                  The inner qualities of the mind and splendid personality of an elected President are more myth than reality and not the most important determinants of what is going to happen to the nation. Congress, the public will, environment, circumstances and context, local and global, and the flow of historical events in the entire world are hugely significant.

                  Best regards,

                  Donald W. Zimmerman
                  Vancouver, BC, Canada
                  dwzimm@...
                  http://www3.telus.net/public/a7a82899
                • Anna
                  Both candidates are bad, but Romney is a catastrophe. Economical and moral. Obama is better economist after all and he has no illusions. But at least he knows
                  Message 8 of 21 , Nov 4, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Both candidates are bad, but Romney is a catastrophe. Economical and moral.  Obama is better economist after all and he has no illusions. But at least he knows how to play his  cards.  Romney is a crook, he will drag this country into a deeper hole and a war at the same time too. Anyway, having a Mormon for a president  would be tragic for this country.  I lived in Utah. How any rational person can even be a Mormon beats me. Also, how can any rational person vote for him..... 
                     
                    Anna
                     
                    Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2012 8:17 AM
                    Subject: [evol-psych] Re: Mitt Romney Explain How Jesus Will Reign for 1,000 Years When He Returns, in Jerusalem... and Missouri
                     
                     

                    ----- Original Message -----
                    Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2012 11:33 PM
                    Subject: Re: Mitt Romney Explain How Jesus Will Reign for 1,000 Years When He Returns, in Jerusalem... and Missouri
                     
                    Maarten,

                    Yes, we are electing a new "administration," a turnover in the executive
                    branch of government.  Nonetheless, my reference to the
                    Constitutionally-mandated secular operation applies to not only all 3
                    branches of the federal government, but to every single governmental
                    entity from school districts to the Presidency.

                    As you will learn when the votes are counted, it is incorrect to say
                    that the "vast majority" of Americans mistrust Romney, that they believe
                    he lies more than Obama.  The populace is split right down the middle.
                    Yes, sadly, all politicians lie, or rather free themselves from earlier
                    commitments once elected.

                    Yes, I trust Romney more than Obama to handle the unexpected.  His
                    experience vastly outweighs Obama's, whose experience is limited to
                    social work at the street level...and in Chicago of all places.  I have
                    lived and worked there, and it is a real viper pit.
                     
                    RKS:
                    It is interesting that you would count only Obama's experience when he ran for the presidency the first time.  He now has four years experience of running the country as president so, as far as experience goes, a sitting president always has more experience than a candidate who has never been part of a presidential administration in any capacity.
                     
                    I note also that Mitt Romney was passed over in favour of Sarah Palin as the vice presidential running mate in the last presidential election, which seems to indicate how much confidence the Republican party hierarchy had in him at that time...
                     
                    It will be all over in a couple of days, thank goodness :)  (I hope you Americans are happy with your choice regardless of whom you choose :)
                     
                    Robert
                  • Julienne
                    ... Not so much. Religion intrudes on every area of our lives in the U S., and is established there. In God We Trust . beginning every political event with
                    Message 9 of 21 , Nov 4, 2012
                    • 0 Attachment
                      At 07:27 AM 11/3/2012, clarence_sonny_williams wrote:
                      >Absolutely, Mormonism entails bizarre beliefs. Doesn't all religion
                      >entail such bizarre beliefs? That is why the U.S. Constitution affords
                      >us the greatest protection from religious beliefs. Governments at all
                      >levels must be perfectly secular. The U.S. Constitution affords far
                      >less protection from governments doing things against our wishes
                      >vis-a-vis "interstate commerce" and other economic affairs. That is why
                      >one's vote should be cast for the administration you believe is taking
                      >the correct course from an economic standpoint, not from some silly
                      >notion of whose religion you least like.

                      Not so much.

                      Religion intrudes on every area of our lives in the U>S., and is established
                      there. "In God We Trust". beginning every political event with thanks to God,
                      "God bless the USA" at the end of every speech - it's everywhere.

                      And below: even the IRS isn't maintaining the separation:

                      Religion And Politics: IRS Not Enforcing Rules On Separation Of
                      Church And State

                      AP | By RACHEL ZOLL Posted: 11/03/2012 1:53 pm EDT Updated:
                      11/04/2012 11:19 am EST
                      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/04/irs-church-state_n_2069009.html


                      Julienne


                      >--- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "Anna" <pantheon@...>
                      >wrote:
                      > >
                      > > Watch Mitt Romney Explain How Jesus Will Reign for 1,000 Years When He
                      >Returns, in Jerusalem... and Missouri
                      > > Video emerges of Romney citing the thinking of a wildly fringe
                      >conspiracy theorist and his belief in the strange intricacies of the
                      >Mormon faith.
                      > > November 2, 2012 | Watch Mitt Romney get in a heated exchange with a
                      >radio host from a radio interview in 2008 about where Jesus will reign
                      >and rule over the Earth for 1,000 years -- in Jerusalem and Missouri.
                      >Romney displays deep familiarity with the thinking of a Mormon
                      >hermit-conspiracy theorist Cleon Skousen, who was also Glenn Beck's
                      >great inspiration.




                      The selection of a Republican candidate for the presidency of this
                      globalized and expansive empire is - and I say this seriously - the
                      greatest competition of idiocy and ignorance that has ever been.
                      Fidel Castro. January 2012
                    • hibbsa
                      ... he ran for the presidency the first time. He now has four years experience of running the country as president so, as far as experience goes, a sitting
                      Message 10 of 21 , Nov 4, 2012
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "Don Zimmerman"
                        <dwzimm@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Karl Stonjek"
                        stonjek@ wrote:
                        >
                        > > It is interesting that you would count only Obama's experience when
                        he ran for the presidency the first time. He now has four years
                        experience of running the country as president so, as far as experience
                        goes, a sitting president always has more experience than a candidate
                        who has never been part of a presidential administration in any
                        capacity.
                        > >
                        > > I note also that Mitt Romney was passed over in favour of Sarah
                        Palin as the vice presidential running mate in the last presidential
                        election, which seems to indicate how much confidence the Republican
                        party hierarchy had in him at that time...
                        > >
                        > > It will be all over in a couple of days, thank goodness :) (I hope
                        you Americans are happy with your choice regardless of whom you choose
                        :)
                        >
                        >
                        > DWZ:
                        > A large part of the American electorate believes that the President is
                        an independent actor who decisively takes charge of government upon
                        being elected and whose inner personal qualities and force of will are
                        responsible for the course of events. That is far from the truth.
                        Actually, the composition of the Senate and the House of Representatives
                        plays an equal role in what gets done. Without the cooperation of those
                        bodies, the President is a "lame duck" at the beginning, not just at the
                        end. Unfortunately, too many voters are not of aware of those facts.
                        >
                        > And the President from the first day in office is surrounded by a
                        network of advisors, appointees, cabinet members, lobbyists, that also
                        are most important in decision making. It is true that many of those
                        advisors are chosen by the President, but the choice is not completely
                        free and voluntary, because payback for financial contributions, the
                        need for Senate approval, the public's perception of the other people in
                        government, etc., also factor into the picture.
                        >
                        > Finally, circumstances in the world, completely beyond the President's
                        control, also have a lot to do with the history of the nation during a
                        term of office. The various wars around the world, unusual weather
                        events, famines, earthquakes, shortages, epidemics of disease, uprisings
                        in other nations, global warming, meteor strikes, etc., can shape many
                        events apart from the determination and heroism of any President.
                        >
                        > The inner qualities of the mind and splendid personality of an elected
                        President are more myth than reality and not the most important
                        determinants of what is going to happen to the nation. Congress, the
                        public will, environment, circumstances and context, local and global,
                        and the flow of historical events in the entire world are hugely
                        significant.
                        >
                        > Best regards,
                        >
                        > Donald W. Zimmerman
                        > Vancouver, BC, Canada
                        > dwzimm@...
                        > http://www3.telus.net/public/a7a82899
                        >



                        Certainly you're right (or I agree) in a lot of these observations. Kind
                        of as an extension of what you say, I think it very difficult to judge a
                        President who does not get a second term. The second term frees the Pre
                        sident from some of these constraining factors at least to some extent.
                        My overall impression of Obama's first term efforts is one that leaves
                        me sufficiently intrigued to want to see what he would do with a second
                        term. That's not to say I necessarily agree with, or even understand the
                        underlying issues to, many of his policies. But rather, I do think that
                        he made good efforts to implement the policies that he said that he
                        would implement. I see that as a very important quality over and above
                        agreeing or disagreeing with what the actual policies were. So..for
                        me...Obama for President! (I also think he is going to win).
                      • Julienne
                        Well, Sonny, I suppose I have to say something here. How are we going to learn when the votes are counted that the populace trusts Romney more than Obama? Do
                        Message 11 of 21 , Nov 4, 2012
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Well, Sonny, I suppose I have to say something here.

                          How are we going to learn when the votes are counted that the
                          populace trusts Romney more than Obama?
                          Do you believe Romney will win?

                          Maybe he will, but I believe that if he does, it will only be because he has
                          managed to fool so many people, and managed to prevent an accurate vote
                          count with all the actions pushed to prevent people from being able to vote -
                          from the 4 hour and more waits some people are having to endure in Florida
                          and elsewhere where Republican governors or other Republicans in charge of the
                          voting machine are in charge. This is simply NOT happening where a Democratic
                          person is in charge. The Democrats are trying to open up the polls, keep the
                          hours as they were in the past, while the Republicans are trying to diminish
                          the process.

                          How do you trust such a machine?

                          How can you close your eyes to that, or approve of it?

                          Why, if you so trust Romney, hasn't he spoken out against this?

                          Republicans, as well as trying to limit the voters, have also been caught
                          throwing out Democratic votes and registrations. They are also trying to
                          scare people into thinking they will be arrested for "voter fraud", so that
                          many people are being scared into not going to vote.

                          I have had to pay $150 to acquire the "right kind" of identification
                          to be able to
                          vote this year - though I have had adequate ID every previous year.
                          It's not just
                          "I.D". - they demand - but specific kinds - and the kinds they want are most
                          difficult for people to get.- especially students, elderly people,
                          and the poor.
                          There is just no way to get an acceptable I.D. without having to pay for it.
                          Having to pay out money to vote is called a "poll tax". We haven't
                          seen this since
                          the days when blacks were made to guess how many jelly beans were in
                          a jar, and
                          other such outrageous "tests" in order to vote.

                          Obama's experience is not "limited to social work" - e has held government
                          office, and he has been president for 4 years. Further, he has international
                          experience - even from his early life in, after his birth in Hawaii, with his
                          mother in other parts of the world. he isn't as insular as too many American
                          presidents have been. Romney's international experience is non-existent -
                          except in business. He made an idiot of himself on his recent fund raising
                          visit to Israel, and his rudeness in England was completely embarrassing.
                          He is a tactless man with no warm connection to others - no empathy. His
                          foreign policy consists of a few monosyllabic wirds with an added threat
                          added. He is not a thinking man.

                          "All politicians lie" is a copout. Studies show all human beings lie -
                          one study I saw said 14 times a day, another 7 a day - and that's each
                          of us every day. But some are inveterate liars, and Romney seems to be
                          one of those.


                          Julienne
                          .

                          At 07:33 AM 11/4/2012, clarence_sonny_williams wrote:
                          >Maarten,
                          >
                          >Yes, we are electing a new "administration," a turnover in the executive
                          >branch of government. Nonetheless, my reference to the
                          >Constitutionally-mandated secular operation applies to not only all 3
                          >branches of the federal government, but to every single governmental
                          >entity from school districts to the Presidency.
                          >
                          >As you will learn when the votes are counted, it is incorrect to say
                          >that the "vast majority" of Americans mistrust Romney, that they believe
                          >he lies more than Obama. The populace is split right down the middle.
                          >Yes, sadly, all politicians lie, or rather free themselves from earlier
                          >commitments once elected.
                          >
                          >Yes, I trust Romney more than Obama to handle the unexpected. His
                          >experience vastly outweighs Obama's, whose experience is limited to
                          >social work at the street level...and in Chicago of all places. I
                          >have lived and worked there, and it is a real viper pit.
                          >
                          >--- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "Maarten"
                          ><m.aalberse@...> wrote:
                          > >
                          > > Unless I'm very mistaken, this is an election of a president, not of a
                          > > government...And what's striking to me in this video is not only hos
                          > > Moronic beliefs, but also how he responds to the interviewer.Sonny,
                          > > seriously, would you like this man handle unespected catastrophic
                          > > events?
                          > > Here's some folks of his own party think of him:
                          > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRJa2OaiwWw
                          > > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRJa2OaiwWw>
                          > > I know you think Obama is a lyer, and you're probably right (can't go
                          > > very far in politics without lying).But his lying pales (sorry, very
                          >bad
                          > > pun) in comparison to Romney's ; I think that a large majority would
                          >say
                          > > a similar thing.
                          > > Maarten
                          > >
                          ><snip>
                          >

                          The selection of a Republican candidate for the presidency of this
                          globalized and expansive empire is - and I say this seriously - the
                          greatest competition of idiocy and ignorance that has ever been.
                          Fidel Castro. January 2012
                        • Julienne
                          ... Well, Anna - we agree on something. :))) The emperor has no clothes - this man is a horror. Romney has 5 wars in mind... What I find, in speaking to those
                          Message 12 of 21 , Nov 4, 2012
                          • 0 Attachment
                            At 04:53 PM 11/4/2012, Anna wrote:


                            Both candidates are bad, but Romney is a catastrophe. Economical and moral.  Obama is better economist after all and he has no illusions. But at least he knows how to play his  cards.  Romney is a crook, he will drag this country into a deeper hole and a war at the same time too. (...) Also, how can any rational person vote for him..... 

                            Well, Anna - we agree on something. :)))

                            The emperor has no clothes - this man is a horror.

                            Romney has 5 wars in mind...

                            What I find, in speaking to those who support Romney, is that they can only create a case
                            for him which is based on deception and a kind of mental illness. I don't believe that
                            Romney is psychologically healthy. Even his wife said that she was worried about his
                            emotional health if he were to become president.  


                            Julienne



                             
                            Anna
                             
                            From: Robert Karl Stonjek
                            Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2012 8:17 AM
                            To: Evolutionary-Psychology
                            Subject: [evol-psych] Re: Mitt Romney Explain How Jesus Will Reign for 1,000 Years When He Returns, in Jerusalem... and Missouri
                             
                             

                            ----- Original Message -----
                            From: clarence_sonny_williams
                            To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                            Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2012 11:33 PM
                            Subject: Re: Mitt Romney Explain How Jesus Will Reign for 1,000 Years When He Returns, in Jerusalem... and Missouri
                             
                            Maarten,

                            Yes, we are electing a new "administration," a turnover in the executive
                            branch of government.  Nonetheless, my reference to the
                            Constitutionally-mandated secular operation applies to not only all 3
                            branches of the federal government, but to every single governmental
                            entity from school districts to the Presidency.

                            As you will learn when the votes are counted, it is incorrect to say
                            that the "vast majority" of Americans mistrust Romney, that they believe
                            he lies more than Obama.  The populace is split right down the middle.
                            Yes, sadly, all politicians lie, or rather free themselves from earlier
                            commitments once elected.

                            Yes, I trust Romney more than Obama to handle the unexpected.  His
                            experience vastly outweighs Obama's, whose experience is limited to
                            social work at the street level...and in Chicago of all places.  I have
                            lived and worked there, and it is a real viper pit.
                             
                            RKS:
                            It is interesting that you would count only Obama's experience when he ran for the presidency the first time.  He now has four years experience of running the country as president so, as far as experience goes, a sitting president always has more experience than a candidate who has never been part of a presidential administration in any capacity.
                             
                            I note also that Mitt Romney was passed over in favour of Sarah Palin as the vice presidential running mate in the last presidential election, which seems to indicate how much confidence the Republican party hierarchy had in him at that time...
                             
                            It will be all over in a couple of days, thank goodness :)  (I hope you Americans are happy with your choice regardless of whom you choose :)
                             
                            Robert


                            The selection of a Republican candidate for the presidency of this globalized and expansive empire is - and I say this seriously - the greatest competition of idiocy and ignorance that has ever been. Fidel Castro. January 2012



                          • Maarten
                            I guess a lot of republicans are dreaming of Romney having an accident and Ryan taking over. Maarten ... moral. Obama is better economist after all and he
                            Message 13 of 21 , Nov 4, 2012
                            • 0 Attachment
                              I guess a lot of republicans are dreaming of Romney "having an accident" and Ryan taking over.


                              Maarten


                              --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "Anna" <pantheon@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > Both candidates are bad, but Romney is a catastrophe. Economical and moral. Obama is better economist after all and he has no illusions. But at least he knows how to play his cards. Romney is a crook, he will drag this country into a deeper hole and a war at the same time too. Anyway, having a Mormon for a president would be tragic for this country. I lived in Utah. How any rational person can even be a Mormon beats me. Also, how can any rational person vote for him.....
                              >
                              > Anna
                              >
                              > From: Robert Karl Stonjek
                              > Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2012 8:17 AM
                              > To: Evolutionary-Psychology
                              > Subject: [evol-psych] Re: Mitt Romney Explain How Jesus Will Reign for 1,000 Years When He Returns, in Jerusalem... and Missouri
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > ----- Original Message -----
                              > From: clarence_sonny_williams
                              > To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                              > Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2012 11:33 PM
                              > Subject: Re: Mitt Romney Explain How Jesus Will Reign for 1,000 Years When He Returns, in Jerusalem... and Missouri
                              >
                              > Maarten,
                              >
                              > Yes, we are electing a new "administration," a turnover in the executive
                              > branch of government. Nonetheless, my reference to the
                              > Constitutionally-mandated secular operation applies to not only all 3
                              > branches of the federal government, but to every single governmental
                              > entity from school districts to the Presidency.
                              >
                              > As you will learn when the votes are counted, it is incorrect to say
                              > that the "vast majority" of Americans mistrust Romney, that they believe
                              > he lies more than Obama. The populace is split right down the middle.
                              > Yes, sadly, all politicians lie, or rather free themselves from earlier
                              > commitments once elected.
                              >
                              > Yes, I trust Romney more than Obama to handle the unexpected. His
                              > experience vastly outweighs Obama's, whose experience is limited to
                              > social work at the street level...and in Chicago of all places. I have
                              > lived and worked there, and it is a real viper pit.
                              >
                              > RKS:
                              > It is interesting that you would count only Obama's experience when he ran for the presidency the first time. He now has four years experience of running the country as president so, as far as experience goes, a sitting president always has more experience than a candidate who has never been part of a presidential administration in any capacity.
                              >
                              > I note also that Mitt Romney was passed over in favour of Sarah Palin as the vice presidential running mate in the last presidential election, which seems to indicate how much confidence the Republican party hierarchy had in him at that time...
                              >
                              > It will be all over in a couple of days, thank goodness :) (I hope you Americans are happy with your choice regardless of whom you choose :)
                              >
                              > Robert
                              >
                            • clarence_sonny_williams
                              Yes, it will be over soon, and we must continue to muddle through whoever is elected. The very important issues that must be resolved, however, require
                              Message 14 of 21 , Nov 5, 2012
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Yes, it will be over soon, and we must continue to muddle through
                                whoever is elected. The very important issues that must be resolved,
                                however, require Congressional action. The President only has veto
                                power, and hopefully both candidates have learned from the torture and
                                closeness of this election that the American public demands that
                                Washington begin to get along. Most of Obama's election promises cannot
                                and, I predict, will not be enacted. The idea of hiring more teachers
                                as a way to stimulate the economic (one of the more idiotic proposals
                                ever put forth by a candidate) is DOA. All those union teachers who
                                want to perpetuate our deteriorating school systems because they insist
                                decision-making be centralized (a tactic used by unions and
                                environmentalists) will be disappointed if their paid hack wins.

                                --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Karl Stonjek"
                                <stonjek@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > ----- Original Message -----
                                > From: clarence_sonny_williams
                                > To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                                > Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2012 11:33 PM
                                > Subject: Re: Mitt Romney Explain How Jesus Will Reign for 1,000 Years
                                When He Returns, in Jerusalem... and Missouri
                                >
                                >
                                > Maarten,
                                >
                                > Yes, we are electing a new "administration," a turnover in the
                                executive
                                > branch of government. Nonetheless, my reference to the
                                > Constitutionally-mandated secular operation applies to not only all 3
                                > branches of the federal government, but to every single governmental
                                > entity from school districts to the Presidency.
                                >
                                > As you will learn when the votes are counted, it is incorrect to say
                                > that the "vast majority" of Americans mistrust Romney, that they
                                believe
                                > he lies more than Obama. The populace is split right down the middle.
                                > Yes, sadly, all politicians lie, or rather free themselves from
                                earlier
                                > commitments once elected.
                                >
                                > Yes, I trust Romney more than Obama to handle the unexpected. His
                                > experience vastly outweighs Obama's, whose experience is limited to
                                > social work at the street level...and in Chicago of all places. I
                                have
                                > lived and worked there, and it is a real viper pit.
                                >
                                > RKS:
                                > It is interesting that you would count only Obama's experience when he
                                ran for the presidency the first time. He now has four years experience
                                of running the country as president so, as far as experience goes, a
                                sitting president always has more experience than a candidate who has
                                never been part of a presidential administration in any capacity.
                                >
                                > I note also that Mitt Romney was passed over in favour of Sarah Palin
                                as the vice presidential running mate in the last presidential election,
                                which seems to indicate how much confidence the Republican party
                                hierarchy had in him at that time...
                                >
                                > It will be all over in a couple of days, thank goodness :) (I hope
                                you Americans are happy with your choice regardless of whom you choose
                                :)
                                >
                                > Robert
                                >
                              • clarence_sonny_williams
                                Julienne, Of course there is a constant strain on the Constitutional protections regarding freedom OF religion and freedom AGAINST the establishment of a
                                Message 15 of 21 , Nov 5, 2012
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Julienne,

                                  Of course there is a constant strain on the Constitutional protections
                                  regarding freedom OF religion and freedom AGAINST the establishment of a
                                  religion. Like it or not, the original colonies were Christian
                                  bastions. They borrowed from Calvinist principles, which also was
                                  largely responsible for our tripartite form of government. When the
                                  colonies decided to form a "more perfect union," they vigorously
                                  defended their right to maintain state-level theocracies; the states
                                  were still Christian bastions. Only after the Civil War did that
                                  sentiment for Christian theocracies begin to erode. That legal erosion
                                  only accelerated beginning around 1930, when the Supreme Court finally
                                  enforced the 14th Amendment and required States to also be perfectly
                                  secular.

                                  So, America has only recently transformed itself from a virtual
                                  theocracy. In light of that, it is easy to see why we have continuing
                                  conflicts over the religion clauses.

                                  --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, Julienne <julienne@...>
                                  wrote:
                                  >
                                  > At 07:27 AM 11/3/2012, clarence_sonny_williams wrote:
                                  > >Absolutely, Mormonism entails bizarre beliefs. Doesn't all religion
                                  > >entail such bizarre beliefs? That is why the U.S. Constitution
                                  affords
                                  > >us the greatest protection from religious beliefs. Governments at
                                  all
                                  > >levels must be perfectly secular. The U.S. Constitution affords far
                                  > >less protection from governments doing things against our wishes
                                  > >vis-a-vis "interstate commerce" and other economic affairs. That is
                                  why
                                  > >one's vote should be cast for the administration you believe is
                                  taking
                                  > >the correct course from an economic standpoint, not from some silly
                                  > >notion of whose religion you least like.
                                  >
                                  > Not so much.
                                  >
                                  > Religion intrudes on every area of our lives in the U>S., and is
                                  established
                                  > there. "In God We Trust". beginning every political event with thanks
                                  to God,
                                  > "God bless the USA" at the end of every speech - it's everywhere.
                                  >
                                  > And below: even the IRS isn't maintaining the separation:
                                  >
                                  > Religion And Politics: IRS Not Enforcing Rules On Separation Of
                                  > Church And State
                                  >
                                  > AP | By RACHEL ZOLL Posted: 11/03/2012 1:53 pm EDT Updated:
                                  > 11/04/2012 11:19 am EST
                                  >
                                  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/04/irs-church-state_n_2069009.html
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Julienne
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > >--- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "Anna" pantheon@
                                  > >wrote:
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Watch Mitt Romney Explain How Jesus Will Reign for 1,000 Years
                                  When He
                                  > >Returns, in Jerusalem... and Missouri
                                  > > > Video emerges of Romney citing the thinking of a wildly fringe
                                  > >conspiracy theorist and his belief in the strange intricacies of the
                                  > >Mormon faith.
                                  > > > November 2, 2012 | Watch Mitt Romney get in a heated exchange with
                                  a
                                  > >radio host from a radio interview in 2008 about where Jesus will
                                  reign
                                  > >and rule over the Earth for 1,000 years -- in Jerusalem and Missouri.
                                  > >Romney displays deep familiarity with the thinking of a Mormon
                                  > >hermit-conspiracy theorist Cleon Skousen, who was also Glenn Beck's
                                  > >great inspiration.
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > The selection of a Republican candidate for the presidency of this
                                  > globalized and expansive empire is - and I say this seriously - the
                                  > greatest competition of idiocy and ignorance that has ever been.
                                  > Fidel Castro. January 2012
                                  >
                                • Phil Roberts, Jr.
                                  ... As I mentioned earlier, I m currently an Obama man because I believe we are in the mess we are in because of two misguided policies favored heavily by
                                  Message 16 of 21 , Nov 5, 2012
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    clarence_sonny_williams wrote:
                                    > Yes, it will be over soon, and we must continue to muddle through
                                    > whoever is elected. The very important issues that must be resolved,
                                    > however, require Congressional action. The President only has veto
                                    > power, and hopefully both candidates have learned from the torture and
                                    > closeness of this election that the American public demands that
                                    > Washington begin to get along. Most of Obama's election promises cannot
                                    > and, I predict, will not be enacted. The idea of hiring more teachers
                                    > as a way to stimulate the economic (one of the more idiotic proposals
                                    > ever put forth by a candidate) is DOA. All those union teachers who
                                    > want to perpetuate our deteriorating school systems because they insist
                                    > decision-making be centralized (a tactic used by unions and
                                    > environmentalists) will be disappointed if their paid hack wins.

                                    As I mentioned earlier, I'm currently an Obama man because I
                                    believe we are in the mess we are in because of two
                                    misguided policies favored heavily by Republicans:

                                    1. Excessive deregulation (Wall Street) harkening back to the
                                    Reagan years ("government is the problem") and
                                    2. A move away from tax and spend (Democrats) to borrow and
                                    spend (Republicans) under the guise of "starve the beast".

                                    For those who might find these arguments wanting, here is another:

                                    According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, here are the net increases in
                                    private-sector employment under each president, chronologically by party:

                                    Republicans

                                    Richard Nixon: Increase of 7.1 million jobs
                                    Gerald Ford: Increase of 1.3 million jobs
                                    Ronald Reagan: Increase of 14.7 million jobs
                                    George H.W. Bush: Increase of 1.5 million jobs
                                    George W. Bush: Decline of 646,000 jobs

                                    Total: Increase of 23.9 million jobs under Republican presidents

                                    Democrats

                                    John F. Kennedy: Increase of 2.7 million jobs
                                    Lyndon B. Johnson: Increase of 9.5 million jobs
                                    Jimmy Carter: Increase of 9.0 million jobs
                                    Bill Clinton: Increase of 20.8 million jobs
                                    Barack Obama: Increase of 332,000 jobs

                                    Total: Increase of 42.3 million jobs.

                                    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/sep/06/bill-clinton/bill-clinton-says-democratic-presidents-top-republ/

                                    PR
                                  • Don Zimmerman
                                    ... DWZ: It would be interesting to know the percentage of all psychologists who support Obama or Romney as opposed to the percentages of those who identify
                                    Message 17 of 21 , Nov 5, 2012
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "hibbsa" <hibbsa@...> wrote:

                                      > Certainly you're right (or I agree) in a lot of these observations. Kind
                                      > of as an extension of what you say, I think it very difficult to judge a
                                      > President who does not get a second term. The second term frees the Pre
                                      > sident from some of these constraining factors at least to some extent.
                                      > My overall impression of Obama's first term efforts is one that leaves
                                      > me sufficiently intrigued to want to see what he would do with a second
                                      > term. That's not to say I necessarily agree with, or even understand the
                                      > underlying issues to, many of his policies. But rather, I do think that
                                      > he made good efforts to implement the policies that he said that he
                                      > would implement. I see that as a very important quality over and above
                                      > agreeing or disagreeing with what the actual policies were. So..for
                                      > me...Obama for President! (I also think he is going to win).


                                      DWZ:
                                      It would be interesting to know the percentage of all psychologists who support Obama or Romney as opposed to the percentages of those who identify themselves as evolutionary psychologists supporting one or the other. My guess is that relatively more "evolutionary psychologists" support Romney because of the current of Social Darwinism that remains within the discipline.

                                      Romney appeals more to the everybody-for-themselves, smaller government, don't-tax-my-money-I-have-rightfully-earned philosophy As a wild guess, maybe 80% of all psychologists are for Obama, while among evolutionary psychologists it is more like 50-50.

                                      If Galton, Haeckel, etc. were alive today, I would expect to see them at Romney rallies. Perhaps their ghosts were there anyway (in empty chairs somewhere behind the podium).

                                      Best regards,

                                      Donald W. Zimmerman
                                      Vancouver, BC, Canada
                                      dwzimm@...
                                      http://www3.telus.net/public/a7a82899
                                    • Julienne
                                      ... I m not sure the Romneyites are for smaller government, though they claim to be. They just want government off their backs - deregulate the banks, credit
                                      Message 18 of 21 , Nov 5, 2012
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        At 12:32 PM 11/5/2012, Don Zimmerman wrote:
                                        >--- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "hibbsa" <hibbsa@...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        > > Certainly you're right (or I agree) in a lot of these observations. Kind
                                        > > of as an extension of what you say, I think it very difficult to judge a
                                        > > President who does not get a second term. The second term frees the Pre
                                        > > sident from some of these constraining factors at least to some extent.
                                        > > My overall impression of Obama's first term efforts is one that leaves
                                        > > me sufficiently intrigued to want to see what he would do with a second
                                        > > term. That's not to say I necessarily agree with, or even understand the
                                        > > underlying issues to, many of his policies. But rather, I do think that
                                        > > he made good efforts to implement the policies that he said that he
                                        > > would implement. I see that as a very important quality over and above
                                        > > agreeing or disagreeing with what the actual policies were. So..for
                                        > > me...Obama for President! (I also think he is going to win).
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >DWZ:
                                        >It would be interesting to know the percentage of all psychologists
                                        >who support Obama or Romney as opposed to the percentages of those
                                        >who identify themselves as evolutionary psychologists supporting one
                                        >or the other. My guess is that relatively more "evolutionary
                                        >psychologists" support Romney because of the current of Social
                                        >Darwinism that remains within the discipline.
                                        >
                                        >Romney appeals more to the everybody-for-themselves, smaller government,

                                        I'm not sure the Romneyites are for smaller government, though they
                                        claim to be. They just want government "off their backs" - deregulate
                                        the banks, credit cards, stock market, anything that helps them make
                                        money for themselves. However, they want to load women up with
                                        regulations, and gays, - and more.

                                        >don't-tax-my-money-I-have-rightfully-earned philosophy

                                        Yes - by whatever means. They still don't get that they didn't make
                                        that money by themselves - but off the backs of their %7.25 an hour
                                        workers. They don't get that they need the roads, trucks, trains,
                                        etc., to movetheir products. Take away all those workers, and those
                                        forms of transportation, and what would happen to their businesses.
                                        They don't get it because they don't want to get it.

                                        >As a wild guess, maybe 80% of all psychologists are for Obama, while
                                        >among evolutionary psychologists it is more like 50-50.
                                        >
                                        >If Galton, Haeckel, etc. were alive today, I would expect to see
                                        >them at Romney rallies. Perhaps their ghosts were there anyway (in
                                        >empty chairs somewhere behind the podium).

                                        Speaking of empty chairs - I had a robot call from Clint Eastwood.
                                        Sad. And another one from the Romneyites ripping Obama apart. Not
                                        nice. Also one from Bill Clinton - just talking about voting...

                                        Julienne


                                        The selection of a Republican candidate for the presidency of this
                                        globalized and expansive empire is - and I say this seriously - the
                                        greatest competition of idiocy and ignorance that has ever been.
                                        Fidel Castro. January 2012
                                      • clarence_sonny_williams
                                        Phil, You forget to take into account the Democrat-induced effort to provide mortgages to previously unqualified people. Why should only the rich live the
                                        Message 19 of 21 , Nov 6, 2012
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Phil,

                                          You forget to take into account the Democrat-induced effort to provide
                                          mortgages to previously unqualified people. Why should only the "rich"
                                          live the American dream of a single-residency in a quiet suburb? That
                                          appeals to the egalitarian principles driving Democrat politics, a
                                          principle that takes primacy over individual earning and the resulting
                                          disparities. Let's get everyone to share the American dream, and
                                          government (via Fanny Mae et al) would pave the way...whether the
                                          individual could afford it or not.

                                          Wall Street then took advantage of this build-up of unqualified
                                          house-owners and everything is fine...until house prices nudge down.
                                          When that happens, the house of cards begun by egalitarian Democrats
                                          falls down, quickly and with devastating results. Could regulations
                                          preventing the sale of mortgage bundling trading instruments have
                                          prevented the collapse? Possibly, but that still means you have
                                          forgotten the REAL driver behind the financial debacle of 2008: Democrat
                                          egalitarianism.

                                          --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "Phil Roberts, Jr."
                                          <philrob@...> wrote:
                                          >
                                          > clarence_sonny_williams wrote:
                                          > > Yes, it will be over soon, and we must continue to muddle through
                                          > > whoever is elected. The very important issues that must be resolved,
                                          > > however, require Congressional action. The President only has veto
                                          > > power, and hopefully both candidates have learned from the torture
                                          and
                                          > > closeness of this election that the American public demands that
                                          > > Washington begin to get along. Most of Obama's election promises
                                          cannot
                                          > > and, I predict, will not be enacted. The idea of hiring more
                                          teachers
                                          > > as a way to stimulate the economic (one of the more idiotic
                                          proposals
                                          > > ever put forth by a candidate) is DOA. All those union teachers who
                                          > > want to perpetuate our deteriorating school systems because they
                                          insist
                                          > > decision-making be centralized (a tactic used by unions and
                                          > > environmentalists) will be disappointed if their paid hack wins.
                                          >
                                          > As I mentioned earlier, I'm currently an Obama man because I
                                          > believe we are in the mess we are in because of two
                                          > misguided policies favored heavily by Republicans:
                                          >
                                          > 1. Excessive deregulation (Wall Street) harkening back to the
                                          > Reagan years ("government is the problem") and
                                          > 2. A move away from tax and spend (Democrats) to borrow and
                                          > spend (Republicans) under the guise of "starve the beast".
                                          >
                                          > For those who might find these arguments wanting, here is another:
                                          >
                                          > According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, here are the net
                                          increases in
                                          > private-sector employment under each president, chronologically by
                                          party:
                                          >
                                          > Republicans
                                          >
                                          > Richard Nixon: Increase of 7.1 million jobs
                                          > Gerald Ford: Increase of 1.3 million jobs
                                          > Ronald Reagan: Increase of 14.7 million jobs
                                          > George H.W. Bush: Increase of 1.5 million jobs
                                          > George W. Bush: Decline of 646,000 jobs
                                          >
                                          > Total: Increase of 23.9 million jobs under Republican presidents
                                          >
                                          > Democrats
                                          >
                                          > John F. Kennedy: Increase of 2.7 million jobs
                                          > Lyndon B. Johnson: Increase of 9.5 million jobs
                                          > Jimmy Carter: Increase of 9.0 million jobs
                                          > Bill Clinton: Increase of 20.8 million jobs
                                          > Barack Obama: Increase of 332,000 jobs
                                          >
                                          > Total: Increase of 42.3 million jobs.
                                          >
                                          >
                                          http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/sep/06/bill-clin\
                                          ton/bill-clinton-says-democratic-presidents-top-republ/
                                          >
                                          > PR
                                          >
                                        • Robert Karl Stonjek
                                          ... From: clarence_sonny_williams To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 12:31 AM Subject: [evol-psych] Re: Mitt Romney
                                          Message 20 of 21 , Nov 6, 2012
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            ----- Original Message -----
                                            Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 12:31 AM
                                            Subject: [evol-psych] Re: Mitt Romney Explain How Jesus Will Reign for 1,000 Years When He Returns, in Jerusalem... and Missouri

                                            Phil,

                                            You forget to take into account the Democrat-induced effort to provide
                                            mortgages to previously unqualified people.  Why should only the "rich"
                                            live the American dream of a single-residency in a quiet suburb?  That
                                            appeals to the egalitarian principles driving Democrat politics, a
                                            principle that takes primacy over individual earning and the resulting
                                            disparities.  Let's get everyone to share the American dream, and
                                            government (via Fanny Mae et al) would pave the way...whether the
                                            individual could afford it or not.

                                            Wall Street then took advantage of this build-up of unqualified
                                            house-owners and everything is fine...until house prices nudge down.
                                            When that happens, the house of cards begun by egalitarian Democrats
                                            falls down, quickly and with devastating results.  Could regulations
                                            preventing the sale of mortgage bundling trading instruments have
                                            prevented the collapse?  Possibly, but that still means you have
                                            forgotten the REAL driver behind the financial debacle of 2008: Democrat
                                            egalitarianism.
                                            RKS:
                                            This is, in fact, quite wrong.  An incoming administration must and does take responsibility of ALL ongoing government programs regardless of who or when they were initiated.  In the last four years of the Bush administration the republicans also had control of Congress.
                                             
                                            Or are we saying that if, for instance, Mitt Romney gets elected he will only take responsibility for Republican initiatives and leave alone anything previously introduced by Democrats?
                                             
                                            There is a quite reasonable expectation that the legacy of previous administrations spans well into the new administration's tenure and this is true for both New Republican and Democrat administrations.  Wars can't suddenly be stopped, economies can't suddenly be changed and so on: same for both sides.
                                             
                                            But when an administration has been in power for eight years and done nothing then they are entirely responsible for the results.  The Republicans did not try to shut down the Sub-prime mortgage initiative, they were not blocked from making changes by the Democrats.  It was the Democrats who saw that the scheme had huge holes in it that were being exploited by shady individuals and it was the Democrats who attempted, and were repeatedly blocked, to close those loopholes.
                                             
                                            The excuse you have given is a much worse reflection on the Republicans than the Democrats.  You are saying that the Republicans, even when elected, are powerless to change Democrat initiatives, that they fail to take control of the country's legislation and administration and are compelled to watch disasters happen as powerless bystanders.
                                             
                                            I doubt that this is really the attitude of the Republican party.  I think that they are strong enough to take control if they so desire, especially when they are in power.  I think they made an error in not dealing with the looming sub-prime disaster but I do not think that they were powerless to take responsibility and control of EVERYTHING their administration was tasked with overseeing.
                                             
                                            Governments, of whatever kind (communist, dictatorships, US Presidential, Westminster etc) first and formostly take responsibility for everything the government does under their watch: those are the rules and probably one of the most basic things that ALL government share, willingly!!!
                                             
                                            Robert
                                          • Phil Roberts, Jr.
                                            ... Fannie Mae (and Freddie Mack) certainly played a role in the 2008-9 collapse, but probably not in the straightforward manner a lot of folks think. I ve
                                            Message 21 of 21 , Nov 8, 2012
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              clarence_sonny_williams wrote:
                                              > Phil,
                                              >
                                              > You forget to take into account the Democrat-induced effort to provide
                                              > mortgages to previously unqualified people. Why should only the "rich"
                                              > live the American dream of a single-residency in a quiet suburb? That
                                              > appeals to the egalitarian principles driving Democrat politics, a
                                              > principle that takes primacy over individual earning and the resulting
                                              > disparities. Let's get everyone to share the American dream, and
                                              > government (via Fanny Mae et al) would pave the way...whether the
                                              > individual could afford it or not.

                                              Fannie Mae (and Freddie Mack) certainly played a role in the 2008-9
                                              collapse, but probably not in the straightforward manner a lot of
                                              folks think. I've watched close to a dozen documentaries on the
                                              collapse, and the one I found the most helpful was the CNBC DVD
                                              'House of Cards'. According to this particular documentary, the
                                              seeds were sown when Fannie Mae ran into management and accounting
                                              problems and was temporarily put out of business. At that point in
                                              time, Wall Street saw a vacuum and a golden opportunity to step
                                              in and fill the void. Up to this point, mortgages were still being
                                              done in a fairly responsible manner. But once Wall Street entered
                                              the picture, the profit motive became the driving force, along with
                                              lots of predatory lending ("the breath test") and in which things
                                              really got crazy. Only after this initial foray into recklessness,
                                              when Fannie Mae once again re-entered the market, and saw itself losing
                                              market share, did it also begin to adopt some of these same tactics
                                              simply to survive in a market that was now out of control.

                                              So a case could be made that the problems arose because of an attempt
                                              to privatize what was previously a fairly smooth running government
                                              operation, and with the resulting company taking advantage of its unfair
                                              position in the market (because of lingering IMPLICIT government
                                              guarantees) with lots of attendant corruption and greed and mismanagement.
                                              But as bad as it was, Fannie Mae was still being fairly
                                              responsible with respect to mortgages. It was only after it was
                                              put out of business for a while while Congress investigated "accounting
                                              discrepancies", and then RE-ENTERED a radically transformed
                                              market, that it too began to adopt some of these irresponsible lending
                                              practices simply to survive.

                                              Some of the other documentaries that I think are worth a watch (my
                                              eyesight is so bad that reading is no longer an option) are:

                                              The Warning
                                              Ten Trillion and Counting
                                              Inside Job
                                              Inside the Meltdown
                                              Money, Power and Wall Street
                                              Breaking the Bank

                                              >
                                              > Wall Street then took advantage of this build-up of unqualified
                                              > house-owners and everything is fine...until house prices nudge down.
                                              > When that happens, the house of cards begun by egalitarian Democrats
                                              > falls down, quickly and with devastating results. Could regulations
                                              > preventing the sale of mortgage bundling trading instruments have
                                              > prevented the collapse? Possibly, but that still means you have
                                              > forgotten the REAL driver behind the financial debacle of 2008: Democrat
                                              > egalitarianism.

                                              Here is where we disagree, although I suspect things are murky enough
                                              for different interpretations. I think things started to go south
                                              when they attempted to privatize a government operation, but in which
                                              the break wasn't clean resulting in a privately held corporation with
                                              an unfair implicit government guarantee resulting in rampant mismanagement
                                              and corruption. But, in spite of this, lending was still fairly responsible.
                                              It was only AFTER Wall Street usurped the market position formerly held
                                              by Fannie Mae that lending practices became irresponsible.

                                              PR
                                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.