To make their argument plausible, they have to make the bogus assertion that “Romney and Obama are exactly the same.”
Sorry, but these pro-Obama folks are beyond disgusting and warped. Truly sick.
Agreed, but its best to ignore and/or mock them, and not get too worked up over their behavior. They are a minuscule bunch and mixed in amongst them are a lot of obama minions pretending to be anti-Mormon conservatives. These sad folks are the useful idiots to the obama gangsters to get their islamist don corleone 4 more years to f$%k America.
Agreed, but its best to ignore and/or mock them, and not get too worked up over their behavior. They are a minuscule bunch and mixed in amongst them are a lot of obama minions pretending to be anti-Mormon conservatives. These sad folks are the useful idiots to the obama gangsters to get their islamist don corleone 4 more years to f$%k America into submission.
(They are indeed political twins)
Careful re: the apologetical approaches being used by Romney supporters. They will tell you...
1. ..."It doesn't matter what Romney does or doesn't embrace."
All that matters to SOME zombie-like "All But Obama" voters (a sheer euphemism for RomneybotISM) is to...
...hype you up on fear-steroids so that THE ONLY THING that matters is who Romney is running against.
They employ, plainly speaking, pragmatic utilitarian political relativism. Pragmatic utilitarianism, simply put, reduces the socio-political to our own pet-agenda bents. Sadly, Spring/Summer of 2012 has shown how Romney "Conservatives" have tended to fall into the same type of utilitarian logic Democrats used in trying to keep President Clinton in office during his impeachment times. Some Democrats then argued that it didn't matter whether Clinton was guilty of sexualizing his employee; all that mattered was not disrupting a "good economy." Per the pragmatic utilitarians, a candidate supposedly isn't to be measured based upon true conservative principles he/she embraces (or doesn't); rather his resume' is 100% irrelevant!
"The ONLY thing that matters," they tell you, "is that Obama is wrecking the economy. (Hence: 'Tis only Romney's main opposing candidate that matters).
The end-game result? This will, of course, strongly replace the GoP with RINOISM. Permanently. To use a racetrack term, this is called "backing the wrong horse." RINOS indeed are the "blue lights" (the name for the 1813 pro-British traitors) of conservatism. They -- and grassroots Americans who have been raised to embrace free-floating relativism and utilitarianism -- are the cultural capitulators of our times!
And they are rapidly gaining new converts every day via Romney's candidacy!
Thus, Romney and Obama are the "G men" twins (Romney is six of one and Obama a half-dozen of another). What once-upon-a-time drew criticism of Romney...for example, his pioneering socialistic healthcare, has now become "acceptable" to these "born-again" Romneyites! The truth is that BOTH Obama and Romney are EACH "G men" (both government men who have pioneered socialistic healthcare).
Likewise, they will tell you...
2. ...that it "doesn't really matter what candidates believe religiously" -- that there somehow (miraculously and prophetically) won't suffer ANY bleedover to ANY other spheres of life...that religion is somehow hermetically sealed and carefully compartmentalized. Sadly, this simply caters to reinforcing one 2012 book published -- that we are indeed a "nation of heretics."
Likewise, they will tell you...
3. ... minus any evidence, mind you, that somehow one heretical religious system (Mormonism) being injected mainstream into our socio-political culture trumps yet another heretical system (Islam) -- all in the name that Obama is somehow a current Muslim (no evidence offered); or that Romney is somehow an economic political savior whom we have to trust implicitly. Never mind that hell stands eternal for all such systems that cater to counterfeit salvation (BOTH MormonISM and Islam).
Finally, they will tend to ignore...
4. ...the potential bleedover of a candidate's vulnerability -- his gullibility -- to deception. They will talk of this character defect -- this sheer lack of discernment -- as if it wasn't part of a presidential "job description!" Yet in areas such as foreign policy, a candidate easily deceived is easily subject to "hook, line, and sinker" foreign policy major fiascos!
Simply put, we must weigh a candidate's level of vulnerability to deception -- for that transcends religious considerations. (And a candidate's level to deception in the most important area of his life, his faith, is an excellent indicator of potential other gullibilities)
We all have blinders to truth. Nobody has a monopoly on it. (But I would say the Bible has the best snapshot of God & humanity and the interaction between the two). Deception exists in the world, and when compared to trustworthy sources of truth (the Bible), deception exists as a continuum. If we agreed that a candidate belongs to the most deceptive cult in the world, then certainly that candidate's vulnerability to deception in the most important area of his life--his faith--serves as an indicator that he/she might be more easily deceived in public policy issues. "Vulnerability to deception" belongs on a character checklist! Even one 2007 poll indicated that 54% of Americans would not vote for an atheist.
A similar principle revolves around this: Other-worldly commitments (faith, whether it's 'True' faith or misdirected faith, IS a character issue!)
There's no way around this realization! To try to extract such other-worldly commitments from character is simply not possible. Time & time again folks try to hermetically seal "faith" & "religion" away from the public square as if folks checked their faith at the door or as if folks were neatly cut-up pie pieces. (Just try telling any voter that he should never weigh "character" into his/her voting-decision considerations).