Yeah, but he's also friendly to Santorum, so what's your point?
The God talker part, in the dispute between you and livius.
In your trying to dispute when livius wanted a president not a preacher, you tried by underlining the word God in the forum purpose statement to claim that had been overlooked, missed, etc.
Not at all.
You try to reason, but you do so in circles and it’s all convenience based.
If a non God talker is fine enough with this forum that this forum endorsed the non God talker over Santorum, the fact that Santorum is also acceptable is not on point.
Jim made it clear any were acceptable except Romney.
Palin, Bachmann, Cain, Newt, Santorum, Perry.
He endorsed Newt, the same one supported by livius, to whom you seemed to think you owed a reminder that this forum stands for God among other things..
You’re the one who needed reminding, if anyone did, to refute your point that livius must have overlooked the God part.
Turning on a dime and try turning around the original argument, or try turning around your own argument, from post to post and minute to minute, for convenience sake, as you have, notwithstanding.
I myself am as strongly religious as it is possible to be. I don’t support Santorum and I do support Newt.
Either one falls under this forum’s purpose statement, you just admitted that.
So why underline God, to livius?
Especially when the author of that purpose statement has said, anyone on that above list, but not Romney.
There’s nothing more to say, from me.
At least, I didn’t stand idly by while you implied a Freeper overlooked the God part who picked a non Rick candidate, which I would’ve felt badly if I had done.