Replies

[As a result, some who opposed Romney specifically for his religion, saw that latitude as an implicit endorsement of their views. Primaries are a rough and tumble, often confusing time, politically speaking, and there are those who use that confusion to spread their views that otherwise wouldn’t be socially acceptable during any other time. Opposing someone based on their religion is simply not acceptable in most cases in the eyes of most Americans and those who do so can’t openly admit to this so, they use a cover story like the “He’s a liberal” rant as a trojan horse for their own views. My two cents, for what its worth.]

Thank God (that would be me) that it is “socially unacceptable” to oppose someone on the basis of their religion (FastCoyoteism - it is all about me me me 24/7).

Now, if you can’t logically defend your position without bowing down to my obviously superior religion (by the way, I’m running for President of the Universe), what makes you think anyone else should listen to your illogic?

FreeRepublic! Unless you are socially unacceptable??? Now there’s a motto!

Classy. Always classy. Remember this: anti-Mormons have failed for 150 years to bring down the church. They murdered the prophet and many of his followers. They drove the Mormons out of settled US territory through force and violence (and then claimed to be the victims of Mormon violence.). And yet, despite your “best” efforts, the church is now a world-wide organization with millions of adherents.

You have failed. You have always failed. You will continue to fail for the foreseeable future. And yet you stick to it thinking that people are falling for your line of bs this time. It hasn’t worked in nearly two centuries, why do you think its going to now? You know, most people have the intelligence to stop digging when they’re in a hole. But you people just keep digging faster and deeper and think you’re making progress. Enjoy. You’re going to see nothing but dirt and darkness for the rest of your lives.