Posted on 10/29/2011 8:05:02 AM PDT by mnehring
Edited on 10/29/2011 2:08:48 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Not only that but due to the blind hatred of Mormons, many people refuse to believe one good thing about Romney. It’s a vicious cycle.
Actually, I've researched Romney quite enough, and I've talked to plenty of people around the country, and the predominant complaint is Romney's LIBERALISM, NOT his squirrely religion. His support for homoseuxal causes, abortion, the global warming hoax, and socialized medicine are more than enough to disqualify him.
I certainly have no respect for false religions like Mormonism, but that is not central to my opposition to Romney. For me and for many others, this is all about Romney's record, and his record stinks!
Riddled with RINOs would be a better term. And Judas Goats.
You may call me a bigot if you want - but I am most certainly not alone. In north central florida Romney won’t get 4 votes in 10. I think most good christians would rather not vote, then cast a vote for someone who will not be in god’s grace.
If you know your Bible, then you should know that the "kings of the world" are mostly opposed to the Lord. Most of them are on the dark side, and it will not go well for them in the end. So, if you're looking to only vote for people who are saved, you probably won't do much voting in this world.
Actually, in fact the writers of Star Trek made philosophical points while using a fantasy genre. Many of the episodes were rather erudite appealing on a different level to those who had a more classical education. Now as to the “works” of ol’ Joe Smith,Golden Tablet translator, unbelievable to anyone who had any sort of a traditional education.Well said.
And to put it another way:
Star Trek is science fiction written by scientifically literate writers and appropriately labeled "science fiction".
Joseph Smith, on the other hand, was also writing science fiction (or actually, more like Sword and Sorcerer Fantasy), BUT:
1. He was NOT scientifically literate... and actually not all that literate at all.
2. He labeled his fantasy "truth", given to him by an "angel".
The writers of Star Trek might take some liberties with the whole idea of "extrapolating technological development into the future" (or they might not, depending on your point of view), but they aren't liars.
Joseph Smith was a liar.
And a p*ss-poor liar at that.
That there are people who can read that stuff and take it seriously... it boggles the mind.
Even Islam, as bad as it is -- and it is very, very bad, and in terms of results and body-counts far worse than Mormonism -- even Islam is more believable. Not that I believe it, don't get me wrong. I'm just saying that as wacko as Islam is, it's not as wacko as Mormonism. (Though it is, of course, infinitely more cruel, deadly and evil.)
“Folks saying they would never vote for a Mormon.”
Baloney.
I’d bet 99% of Freepers would vote for a mormon like Glenn Beck in a minute.
The problem with Romney is he’s a lying freakshow liberal with no compuction to say ANYTHING to get power.
JR: All three of them were despised on FR.
LE: Not always.
If I may interject here, I believe I have been on this forum long enough to (finally) be able to comment on matters of history around here. McCain, Giulianni, and Romney have, as far as I have seen, been nearly universally disliked here on FR. There may have been some fringe support for any (or all) of the three, just as there is still today for Ron Paul here, for example. But never widespread support.
McCain enjoyed a brief period of tolerated support after he secured the nomination in 2008, but never before, and, as Jim Robinson has made clear, this site will never tolerate supporting RINO’s again.
These are as I recall, how FR has been to the aforementioned three. I will state only once (now) that I do not agree that the Republican nominee should not be supported if its Romney. My opinion means nothing in that regard, insomuch as any “right” I may have to tell Mr. Robinson how to run his site. I also will do nothing dishonorable to disrupt such.
I simply wanted to set the record straight WRT the aforementioned three’s status here. Again, I have never seen support for RINOism tolerated very much here, except for the case mentioned above. Indeed, I recognize I am doing myself no favors by posting what I did above. I feel reasonably confident in doing so however, since I have never before said anything that could even be construed as disruptive to the goals of this site. And, as previously said, I have no desire to persue such an agenda here.
Even assuming Mittens GETS the nomination, which now, I’m doing everything I can to prevent that! Which reminds me: Everyone reading this now, have you donated to Herman Cain yet? :)
I will write in a candidate if I have to. Why are you defending RINOs??
Why are you wasting a vote against Obama, FOR someone who can’t win?
What makes Newt a RINO?
(singular, as he’s the only one I’m supporting)
He’s conservative on Fiscal, social, and foreign policy.
He’s changed on AGW, challenging Gore on the subject.
His marriage record makes him a RINO???
I’m supporting him because we can retire the national debt, by charging admission for his debates w Obama!!
A nine percent VAT tax, if proposed by a Democrat, would raise a cry from here to outer space. For some reason, from Herman Cain, it’s perfectly acceptable.
This garden path is well worn. Here we go again!
A nine percent VAT tax, if proposed by a Democrat, would raise a cry from here to outer space. For some reason, from Herman Cain, it’s perfectly acceptable.
This garden path is well worn. Here we go again!
Maybe because FReepers are smart enough to know the difference between a VAT (which Cain’s plan is not) and a sales tax that replaces almost 30% hidden taxes in the products and services you buy.
We are smarter than the average bear here.
To set the record straight, they are not saying the sales tax is a VAT. They are saying his proposed income tax, because it lacks a deduction for wages, functions as a VAT.
That makes even less sense as a VAT is a production level tax on all levels of production of a good. It has nothing to do with VAT also.
It is still a matter of gross versus net. The fact is that the 999 plan replaces income, payroll, and corporate taxes that can eat up over 50% of your pay, be it through income or hidden sales taxes, and replaces it with a clean, out in the open, system.
It's utter crap -- the same accusations of anti-Mormon bias were being thrown around last time around, too, when Obama had bigger thighs (Clinton) to fry. It's just a convenient excuse to hide from legitimate criticism of the man's record, which is anti-conservative and even, in many respects, anti-Republican.
You may be correct in that he is the lesser of two evils.
“Reid has been given high awards from BYU for being a good mormon.”
Oh you are kidding me! If he is a good Mormon then what do they consider bad?
Net?? Yawn. He’s just more of the same old inside-the-beltway Establishment. He claims to have change his GW position(election purposes obviously)but I don’t buy it.
A RINO would be no better than Obama, and Newt is a has-been and a RINO. Unelectable. No better chance of winning than any write-in candidate.
Fresh new blood is needed, and a conservative to the core. Whomever that may be I will support.
I could support and vote for Cain, Bachmann, maybe Perry, otherwise unless someone else shows up, it’s write-in for me.
Oops. Newt. Sorry for the typo.
I dunno, Laz... Obama/Biden are making a strong case for incompetent liberals to be worthy of that distinction.
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.