Posted on 05/30/2007 7:19:37 AM PDT by Reaganesque
No, I am Episcopalian. And I do not await your judgement as to the degree to which you consider my religion specious.
I’m so sorry to read that you too are Episcopalian ... I’ve been attacked, attacked I tell ya, for admitting I’m an heretical Episcopalian (heretical because I do not agree with the election of degenerates to the Bishopric and as Priests).
Focusing on negativity or bigotry is not my style. I do not see it as big an issue as you apparently do. Projecting bigotry is not useful to me either. I'd rather accentuate the positive.
If anyone has blinders on, it is those who fail to see Mitt Romney's executive experience, leadership ability, exceptional record of accomplishments, and personal character all wrapped up in an attractive, charismatic package, as the best thing to come along to carry the conservative message since Ronald Reagan.
Eyes wide open over here.
Sorry to disappoint regarding your religion. I don’t know anything about it and so I will rightly refrain from commenting.
Definition of specious (adjective)
plausible, but deceptive; apparently, but not actually true; superficially attractive
Do you regard the claims of Mormonism as valid?
Romney is the “Bush machine” pick. I have had enough Bushes and Clintoons to last me for a while.
Rudy WILL NOT win any "blue states" and the only swing state he can turn our way would be New Hampshire. He would NOT bring out religious voters in places like Ohio, Wisconsin, West Virginia, and Iowa, which would flip to the Dem candidate (who may not be Hillary).
Besides, in case you haven't noticed, Rudy's campaign so far has consisted solely of "Remember me on 9/11" and he has otherwise indicated ZERO substance or gravitas. The man is an empty dress with more skeletons in his closet than the crypt keeper.
I can live with either Mitt or Fred. McCain and Rudy can spend the rest of their lives on the lecture circuit for all I care.
Fred had obligations up until the end of June which walking out on would have been very costly. That’s why the up tick, the Freddy campaign begins now.
Nothing wrong with Romney, governing the most liberal state in the union doesn’t do much for your Conservative credentials. In the last debate Romney saw nothing wrong with reimposing the AW ban.
Here’s a little secret for you (don’t publish this because you will be attacked, also): I too think his executive experience is a superior quality; but he is too moderate for my personal atstes. I also feel his mental accuity will serve him well when debating ANY democrat. If there were a way to avoid the achille’s heel of his religion which will be exploited by the media democrat sycophants, I could vote for Mitt Romney in the general election without worrying about the vote. But to ignore what the DNC has proved they are capable of is to stick one’s head in the sand just to support Mitt ‘to spite bigotry’. And if Mitt were to be elected, the liberal/leftists media would spend their every waking moment exploiting the schismic reality between Mormonism and Orthodox Christianity. You know they would because they would do anything to try and get their liebral democrats back into power. Such constant exploitation of the schism would not mainstream Mormonism or Mormons, and you surely can see that even if you do not focus upon it.
I regard the claims of Mormonism as theological. Didn't you claim to eschew theological discussion on political threads a few posts back?
Henceforth, you and your co-FR-theologians shall be known as the FR Flying Inmans, because in a secular setting you make a big fuss out of religion, and are a threat to hijack.
So you don’t believe the DNC will exploit the heresies in Mormonism or the false prophecies by the founder of Mormonism, or that the effort to expose the heresies will fail?
I will be voting for Mitt Romney . I think he will be great as president.
?
Henceforth, you and your co-FR-theologians shall be known as the FR Flying Inmans, because in a secular setting you make a big fuss out of religion, and are a threat to hijack.
He's talking about the "flyimg imams"...looks pretty close to describing us as terrorist wannabes....this name calling is really getting ridiculous.
In today's Washington Times Audrey Hudson reviews the behavior of the flying imams: "How the imams terrorized an airliner."
The removal of six Muslim clerics from a US Airways flight from the Twin Cities set off a nationwide uproar, and the Department of Homeland Security's Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties said it will review the incident.
Bloggers and talk radio buzzed about the need to be vigilant against potential terrorists
Yep.
I kinda wondered what an ‘Inman” was. LOL
Is anyone keeping a tally of the names we’ve been called today? Wasn’t that you foxxy?
Bigot
Mormon Assaulters
Flying Inman
Mormon Assaulters
Flying Inman
Those are just the NEW ones today! Bigot and haters got a real workout against us yesterday, and "anti" and "basher" have been old standbys...looks like the memo went out to come up with new attack names ;(
Coyote, I seem to remember you getting the brunt of the attacks today. Were there some new nasties aimed at you?
Enosh reminded me of these:
“fraud”, “fake martyr” and “un-American!”
Enosh reminded me of these:
“fraud”, “fake martyr” and “un-American!”
Busy aren’t they?
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.