Well, this time, I waited for a response. I didn't get one.
First, youre free to ask questions any way you wish. And Im free to answer them any way I wish.
I'm glad you realize that. So you should understand that if you choose to be vague or non-responsive, you have nothing to complain about when people get the wrong impression. You gave it.
I told you explicitly it was a "yes" or "no" question TWICE, and you chose an answer that was neither "yes" nor "no." Now, since you're such a hotshot political consultant, you know good and well that when a politician/spokesperson/bureaucrat is given a perfectly relevant "yes" or "no" question and chooses to respond with an answer that is neither "yes" or "no," s/he is -- almost 100% of the time -- giving you a load of crap. (There is no better illustration of this than Michael Chertoff's refusal to answer Chris Wallace "yes" or "no" as to whether all the enforcement billion$ the Bush Admin offered Republicans as a sweetener to the amnesty bill would now be proposed to enforce current immigration law.)
Just so my use of the English language isnt over your head, dont care means I dont care whether Mitt or my hypothetical candidate is a Mormon (or a Baptist or a Presbyterian).
Dont even need the just converted angle. Id support a candidate whos been a lifelong Mormon, if he actually has a record of supporting LDS values (unlike Mitt).
Then you should have simply answered "Yes." Why didn't you?
Even if you don't have a problem, I have serious doubts about a Pat Robertson-affiliated organization's motivations. Robertson is a failed Presidential candidate and a loose cannon with delusions of grandeur -- remember how in 2005, he publicly urged the White House to assassinate Hugo Chavez, as if they would have listened? What a maroon.
“Even if you don’t have a problem, I have serious doubts about a Pat Robertson-affiliated organization’s motivations.”
Gotta hand it to you, Smithee. You’ve near perfected the art form of saving face.
Just eviscerated and laid bare your feeble “religious bigotry” allegation, which you breezily acknowledge with a hurried concession, quickly followed by a seamless segue into then questioning Pat Robertson’s motivations. (Oh, that didn’t work, but not having learned my lesson, I’ll try it again.)
So having tried it again, let me eviscerate you again.
NEWSWEEK: “Romney’s edge — (Pat) Robertson has to have his own candidate, and there is no way it would be McCain. The good doctor seems to have taken a liking to Romney, whose father was a governor and who had the good sense to get graduate degrees from Harvard. Robertsons Christian Broadcasting Network ran a glowing profile of Romney, a piece that studiously ignored some of the Mormon doctrinal teachings that would seem calculated to make even Robertsons helmet of TV hair stand on end.”
Two months ago, at Robertson’s invitation, Romney gave the commencement address at Regent University; in fact, that’s where Mitt said porn videos were partly responsible for the VA Tech shootings.
Jay Sekulow, president of the American Center for Law & Justice, the Christian legal foundation founded by Robertson, is openly endorsing Romney and serving as a campaign advisor.
Plus Sekulow’s 20-something son Jordan is a paid Romney campaign staffer.
“Thus endeth the lesson.” (Sean Connery, The Untouchables)
That is, the latest in a series of lessons.
In both cases (your questioning first mine and then Pat’s motives), you’ve exposed yourself as not only clueless but as grasping at any straw by which to appear to maintain an argument.
After this series of embarrassments and exposures, please show some dignity and just throw in the towel.