English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Or would he just give the Mormans most of the west like they have always wanted to form their own country?

2007-05-25 08:36:55 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Government

14 answers

LMAO!!! I think we're rewinding back to the 1960's presidential race between Kennedy and Nixon where Kennedy's faith in Roman Catholicism came into question. Good joke! :-P

2007-05-25 08:43:27 · answer #1 · answered by Maria Gallercia 4 · 1 0

Last time I checked , we were at war with the Taliban. Why should we let one of their cousins inti the White House?

This one happened 150 years ago but I think its still relevant because Mitt Romneys church pardoned a terrorist mass murderer of Americans.

It was September 11, 1857. A wagon train of 160 settlers on their way to California was massacred by a bunch of Mormons dressed in Indian clothes. 17 children under the age of 8 were spared and lived to tell their story.
1st. They dressed as Indians but after five days they changed tactics.
2nd. Then they went a bit away ,dressed back into normal clothes and acted like the Rescue Party who had negotiated a deal with the"Indians".
3rd, Then confiscated all the guns as part of the deal for "saving" the travellers and Mormon dissidents( who were the reason for the attack in the first place).
4th. Took everybody off a mile or so and shot them all. 2 men got away but were eventually tracked down and killed a day or so later.
5th. Took the 17 children they had not killed back with them to Salt Lake City.
6th. Got away with it. After a publicized trial, with the childrens own testimony admitted into the court, only 1 man was convicted and shot, John D. Lee. ( pardoned by Church 1960)

It ended up being called the Mountain Meadows Massacre. The first time in U.S. history that U.S. citizens were massacred on U.S. soil by religious wackos. This event is even more significant because the total U.S. population at the time was much smaller.(I dont know the exact numbers, maybe only 30 million or so) In todays numbers it would be around 1400 dead

2007-05-27 12:13:10 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

I don't think they have enough moving vans just to move the paper work to Salt Lake City. Don"t they already have their own country called Utah?

2007-05-25 15:43:44 · answer #3 · answered by Guru Doal 2 · 0 0

Probably both, but even with their brains, it would take his entire first term to pull it off. Bush is NOT a Catholic, either, not that it really matters.

2007-05-25 15:45:32 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

A little bigoted are we?

Similar stuff was said when JFK ran for president and now Catholics are totally accepted.

2007-05-25 15:40:06 · answer #5 · answered by Sean 7 · 1 0

Kennedy didn't move the country to Rome..get over it.

2007-05-28 18:47:13 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

He will do neither. This man was a great Governor here in my state and brings wonderful core values with him!

2007-05-25 15:53:41 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

Is trolling a sign of profound lonliness?

2007-05-25 15:46:45 · answer #8 · answered by Dave K 3 · 1 0

Rice hammered Clinton, who leveled his charges in a contentious weekend interview with Chris Wallace of Fox News Channel, for his claims that the Bush administration “did not try” to kill Osama bin Laden in the eight months they controlled the White House before the Sept. 11 attacks.

“The notion somehow for eight months the Bush administration sat there and didn’t do that is just flatly false - and I think the 9/11 commission understood that,” Rice said during a wide-ranging meeting with Post editors and reporters.

“What we did in the eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years,” Rice added.

The secretary of state also sharply disputed Clinton’s claim that he “left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy” for the incoming Bush team during the presidential transition in 2001.

“We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda,” Rice responded during the hourlong session.

Her strong rebuttal was the Bush administration’s first response to Clinton’s headline-grabbing interview on Fox on Sunday in which he launched into an over-the-top defense of his handling of terrorism - wagging his finger in the air, leaning forward in his chair and getting red-faced, and even attacking Wallace for improper questioning.

The “Fox News Sunday” show had its best ratings since the capture of Saddam Hussein in December 2003, according to Nielsen Media Research. Two versions of the interview were the two most-watched clips on YouTube yesterday, totaling more than 800,000 views. After Clinton got angry during the questioning, Wallace said Clinton aide Jay Carson tried to get his producer to stop the interview. Carson said he was concerned that time was running out and that little of the philanthropy efforts of the former president had been addressed.At The Post, Rice also touched on hot spots around the globe:

On Iran: “There isn’t a particularly good, direct way to neutralize the Iranian threat.”
On Iraq: “You’re never going to have a just Sunni-Shia reconciliation if you don’t have a political system in which the interests of all can be represented - and that’s what Iraq represents.”
On Pakistan: “The future of Pakistan, as [President Pervez] Musharraf and his people fully understand, is to de-radicalize elements of the population.”
On the Middle East conflict: “It would help to have a moderate force in the Palestinian territories and to have the beginnings of rapprochement with Israel and the rest of its neighbors.”
On the Far East: “I would like to see an improvement in Japanese-China relations.”
In her pointed rebuttal of Clinton’s inflammatory claims about the war on terror, Rice maintained the Bush White House did the best it could to defend against an attack - and expanded on the tools and intelligence it inherited.

“I would just suggest that you go back and read the 9/11 commission report on the efforts of the Bush administration in the eight months - things like working to get an armed Predator [drone] that actually turned out to be extraordinarily important,” Rice added.

She also said Clinton’s claims that Richard Clarke - the White House anti-terror guru hyped by Clinton as the country’s “best guy” - had been demoted by Bush were bogus.

“Richard Clarke was the counterterrorism czar when 9/11 happened. And he left when he did not become deputy director of homeland security, some several months later,” she said.

Rice noted that the world changed after 9/11.

“I would make the divide Sept. 11, 2001, when the attack on this country mobilized us to fight the war on terror in a very different way,” Rice said.

Rice cited the final 9/11 commission report to substantiate her claims, while Clinton relied on Clarke’s book as the basis for many of his rehashing the events leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks.

“I think this is not a very fruitful discussion. We’ve been through it. The 9/11 commission has turned over every rock and we know exactly what they said,” she added.

Transitioning to the global war on terror, an animated Rice questioned, “When are we going to stop blaming ourselves for the rise of terrorism?”

Asked about recently leaked internal U.S. intelligence estimates that claimed the Iraq war was fueling terrorist recruiting, Rice said: “Now that we’re fighting back, of course they are fighting back, too.”

“I find it just extraordinary that the argument is, all right, so they’re using the fact they’re being challenged in the Middle East and challenged in Iraq to recruit, therefore you’ve made the war on terrorism worse.

“It’s as if we were in a good place on Sept. 11. Clearly, we weren’t,” she added.

“These are people who want to fight against us, and they’re going to find a reason. And yes, they will recruit, but it doesn’t mean you stop pursuing strategies that are ultimately going to stop them,” Rice said.

She insisted U.S. forces must finish the job in Iraq and the wider Middle East to wipe out the “root cause” of violent extremism - not just the terror thugs who carry out the attacks.

“It’s a longer-term strategy, and it may even have some short-term down side, but if you don’t look at the longer term, you’re just leaving the problem to somebody else,” she said.

She also said Middle East countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have a “major educational reform” effort under way to root out propaganda literature and extremist brainwashing.

In Latin America, home to outrageous Venezuelan bomb thrower Hugo Chavez, Rice said the U.S. approach is to “spend as little time possible in talking about Chavez and more time talking about our positive agenda in Latin America,” including several trade agreements.

2007-05-25 17:11:53 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Are you serious with this question? I mean really, are you really concerned about this, or do you just think you are being cute.

2007-05-25 15:58:53 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers