[DelphiUser]

I didn't say or mean *all*the founders.

Is it your assertion that a man with similar views to even some of the founders is worse than what we have now?

Is it your assertion that it is better to have a second term resident who believes the constitution is a “flawed document” than a man who believes it's inspired?

Is it your assertion that a candidate who is head and shoulders over obama (weren't all our candidates?) Should be rejected solely on the basis of his religion?

Delph

[DelphiUser]

The illogic displayed on this thread is breathtaking, and since I am a) out of the habit of posting, and posting from my phone, I'm done with this for now.

Delph.

[Colofornian]

Is it your assertion that a man with similar views to even some of the founders is worse than what we have now?

(I didn't know that some of the founders...
(a) thought they were "gods-in-embryo"...[DU, all -- for references as to what I'm talking about here, see post #30]
or (b) considered Christian sects to be apostate & filled with 100% "corrupt" professors & 100% "abominable" creeds...[For Lds "scriptures" referenced here, see post #84])

[Colofornian]

Is it your assertion that a candidate who is head and shoulders over obama (weren't all our candidates?)

(Well, of course, Mitt Romney "a god of gods," is "head and shoulders" over a mere man, Barack. Is it your assertion that Mitt Romney is not a "god in embryo"??? ... I expect a direct answer to that question)

[Colofornian]

Should be rejected solely on the basis of his religion?

1. Most Mormons are not notorious pro-aborts who have made pro-abort actions/comments in 1994, 2002, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2012...like Mitt Romney has done.

2. Most Mormons -- anywhere from 80 to 85% of them -- are not temple Mormons -- like Mitt Romney is. Therefore, non-temple Mormons have ZILCHO claim to be or become "gods." The celestial kingdom, where the Mormon "gods" supposedly attain, is not for them.

[D-fendr]

To be fair, it's quite a small group that won't vote for a mormon just because he's a mormon.

And, for something completely different: Why Evangelicals Are Supporting Romney

[Colofornian]

Is it your assertion that it is better to have a second term resident who believes the constitution is a “flawed document” than a man who believes it's inspired?

You do realize, don't you, that this Q goes both ways...thereby making it a 1-1 deadlock "tie" of sorts...which is horrendous "light" directed upon Mitt Romney...to actually "lose out" on a Constitutional matter to an out-and-out loser like Barack Obama.

With this Q you ask, DU, "Mitt" jumps out to a 1-0 lead on the Constitution.

But then the next Q comes -- equaling the Constitutional Qs at one apiece:

Is it your assertion, DU, that...
...it is better to have a first term president who...
...believes the Constitution's authors were “flawed” to the point of ...
...being "corrupt" professors of their faith;
...were 100% "apostate" before God/Jesus Christ;
...and that most of them embraced Christian sect creeds that Mitt and the rest of Mormon leadership regard as 100% an "abomination" before the Mormon god?

(I expect a direct answer to this question)

ALL: IT IS LDS OFFICIAL doctrine that the worldwide Christian denominations -- as they existed in the 18th century -- were in apostasy...
...that 100% of Christian sect creeds were regarded as an "abomination" -- per the first "vision" Joseph Smith received...
...and that "all" professors of the Christian faith were "corrupt"...citations found at post #84.

Were the founders to be still in their grave, they'd turn over at the nasty allegations made by Joseph Smith and the rest of Lds "prophets" and their disciples.