you have a screen name since 2001. No fault for you there.
90 percent of your posts are anti-Mitt or anti-Mormon. I find I agree with them almost without exception. So I cannot fault you there.
IMHO, about 10 percent of your posts are supportive of Obama in some ways. Its almost as if you accept the precedent of someone getting elected with no vetting of their religion (his perfect Arabic recitation of the Muslim call to prayer, which is the same as the Muslim statement of faith). Now that we have elected someone without regard to their religion, you refuse to recognize the precedent you seem to accept with Obama!
IMHO, each and every post (I skimmed several hundred of them, and that got me back to late June of 2012) is taking issue with other freepers, quibbling over words, arguing with those who are compromising a true Christian faith by their acceptance of Mormonism, or otherwise calling someone out on their lack of evidence of Obama's Muslim faith.
It would take quite some time (as far as I can tell, I am not really interested in looking at the same stuff over and over just to find out what month you started posting about Romney and mormonism) to figure out when you had ANY other issue to discuss.
I am no fan of Mittens. I am no fan of Mormonism. I consider myself a flawed Christian. And I compromise on things too often. But a Mormon is a person and I have friends who are Mormons. Like Mark Twain (paraphrasing): Its not the parts of the Bible I don't understand that concern me, its those parts that I DO understand! And so, my sins of omisssion may far out-number my sins of comission. Just as my apathy is greater than my activism.
But so far, voting against Obama is a clear winner for me. People seem to want to argue about who to vote FOR. And thats okay, I guess. I think almost any Republican (is Ron Paul a Republican?) would earn my vote. Who do you suggest?
The primary is not over until the convention is over, no? Do you support anyone as passionately as you oppose Romney?
Sorry...but your discernment skills are lacking somewhat here...
First of all, anti-Romney posts doesn't make them pro-Obama, anymore than...
...if a reincarnated (R) Hitler was running vs. THE Anti-Christ...
...that anti-reincarnated Hitler comments somehow would make some of my posts pro-THE Anti-Christ.
I've occasionally challenged people to prove that Obama IS a current (practicing) Muslim. All that's doing is encouraging posters to up the level of their credibility...vs. sloppy conjecture.
90 percent of your posts are anti-Mitt or anti-Mormon. I find I agree with them almost without exception. So I cannot fault you there.
Clarification needed: I am a descendent from Lds; I have family members who are Lds...I am not anti-Mormon as a people; I DO oppose MormonISM...the system...You and I both know that Eph. 6 says our battle is NOT vs. flesh & blood.
Its almost as if you accept the precedent of someone getting elected with no vetting of their religion (his perfect Arabic recitation of the Muslim call to prayer, which is the same as the Muslim statement of faith). Now that we have elected someone without regard to their religion, you refuse to recognize the precedent you seem to accept with Obama!
Less than three months ago, I posted this: My research/links on 11 2008-2012 FR threads tying Obama with Islam
If you click on most of those 11 FR links, why would conclude that...
(a) ...there was "no vetting of their religion (his perfect Arabic recitation of the Muslim call to prayer...)" when some of those links prove otherwise? (Oh sure, the MSM was lacking in its Obama vetting; doesn't equate to "NO vetting...")
(b) ...I agree with your "precedent" assessments?
The fact that you are seemingly NOT aware of those 11 FREEPER threads 'tween 2008-2012...or that I had tracked them...makes your commentary less than complete.
90 per cent? NINTY PER CENT?? HOW ABOUT A 110 PER CENT!