Posted on 09/16/2012 1:15:05 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
I was adding my $0.2 to aimhigh’s analogy and he/she had addressed it to you.
Nice deflections. I am applauding you.
Thanks Moor
How 2nd, do we “go after him” after the election when there are people who are blind to him now?
Will we hear, can’t do that now the mid terms are coming up
Will we hear, can’t do that now the election is coming up
My fear is that rabid supporters of Romney now, will be who they are now, berating and eviscerating anyone who challenges Romney’s action.
No problem, sis.
You’re probably right.
There’s also the effect of the high numbers of black middle class and up who work for the gov’t. They’re going to vote for the party of more gov’t every time.
Stupid advice by these black clergy to “stay home” on election day based on bad presidential candidates. Even if one is thoroughly disgusted by either presidential candidate (as I am,) there is still the congressional races that are pivotal. And in 4 states, marriage hangs in the balance.
Again, stupid, stupid advice.
Perhaps you should review your understanding of the Constitution. The Constitution limits the powers of the government. The pertinent part of Article VI:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Why was this necessary? Because so many of the original thirteen state were established as religious enclaves for persecuted Christians in Europe. Article VI forbid states from requiring office holders to be of the official state religion, for example, you didn't have to be Catholic in Maryland, Presbyterian in Massachusetts, or Episcopalian in Virginia to hold office. Remember that there were official state religions at the time the U.S. Constitution was drafted.
There are plenty of good reasons not to vote for Mitt Romney (NONE of which outweigh the fact that he is not Obama, btw), but the fact he is a Mormon isn’t one of them.
An individual can use any reason he or she wants. The Constitution has no limit on how the individual makes that choice.
I agree that there are lots of good reasons not to vote for Mitt and I don't intend to vote for him. While I am opposed to Mormonism, I wouldn't vote for Mitt if he sincerely came to Christ tomorrow. His Mormonism isn't the reason I'm not supporting Romney - it is his politics.
I don’t think we disagree on anything, aside from the voting for Romney part.
I apologize if I read something into your comment that wasn't there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.