So now you’re equating Mormons with
militant homosexuals and Godless atheists. Nice.

“Equating” has nothing to do with it. I am just observing the obvious.

I’d vote for a Mormon, a homosexual or an atheist as long as they upheld the Constitution and my first amendment rights to practice my religion and talk about it.

It’s a free Country, vote for whoever you want to! For me, voting for a follower of an all too obviously false religion just isn’t going to happen, sorry.

Where do you get off putting yourself in God’s place and determining who is and who isn’t a Christian?

Considering that the Bible is God’s word, and considering that God clearly defines within its pages what constitutes Christianity, and considering that Mormonism doesn’t even begin to align itself with the truth contained in the Bible, no one needs “put themselves in God’s place” to determine anything of the kind…all one need do is compare the lies of Mormonism to what God says is the truth in the Bible, and Mormonism far too easily fails the test.

Furthermore, someone saying that they put their faith in “jesus christ” doesn’t mean a whole lot when the “jesus christ” that they are speaking of is most obviously NOT the same Jesus Christ of which the Bible speaks.

Also, where do you get off telling anyone anything about Mormonism when you haven’t a clue what you’re talking about.

I may have actually forgotten more about Mormonism than you quite possibly know, but regardless of that, considering that I am not one of the dead to God spiritually blind people sitting around believing all sorts of silly non Biblical nonsense instead of what God actually says in His word, I am thinking that it just may actually be you who is clueless in all this. Either way, either prove me clueless or stow it, because calling me that without proving it just makes you look silly.

You deserve Huck and his touchy-feely nanny stateism. Better start eating some big macs, because Huck and the Dems will ban them. I can’t wait for Huck to give the Iranians a big hug too, because that’s all they need to change their minds about wiping us and Israel out.

I am pretty certain that we don’t need to worry about Israel, since God already tells us what is going to happen over there. And, what makes you think you won’t be saying “President Hillary Clinton” next year at this time anyway…

Let me put this in simple terms:

Voting for Hillary = Voting for Hillary
Not voting for Hillary = Not voting for Hillary

Me no want Hillary.
Me no want Rudy.
Me no want Mitt.
Me no want Huckster.
Me not vote for Hillary, Rudy, Mitt or Huckster.

Am I to believe that all 40%-50% of eligible voters who won’t be voting are all voting for Hillary? Nonsense.

Hollowpoint on December 11, 2007 at 5:04 PM

You can say that all day long, but if you did vote your vote would cancel out a vote for Hillary… if you don’t vote, that’s one more vote she has over the GOP nominee. Get it? So a “non-vote” is a vote for Hillary. Again, I don’t like it either, but that’s just the way it is. Even I’ll vote for whoever the GOP candidate is, and for me it really doesn’t matter at all, because I live in Vermont. We’re easily the most liberal state in the country and I can’t even see a day when we would vote for a Republican president… sad too, because my grandfather transferred up here to head up the VT’s division of the FBI in the 50s and it was a conservative state, but it’s gone downhill since the 70s and only gets worse by the day. Whether it’s civil unions, secession movements, probation for child rapists, highest taxes per capita in the nation, HOWARD DEAN, Burlington mayor openly stating that he wanted (though failed) to make Burlington a sanctuary city, Truthers gone wild, daily anti-war protests on Church St., etc. This is moonbat heaven… Still, I’ll vote.

So, if your state doesn’t have the potential to go either way, I probably wouldn’t care if you didn’t vote Hollowpoint… But if you’re somewhere like Ohio or Florida, etc. where each vote matters, I think if you really don’t want Hillary, you owe it to yourself and the country to vote for anyone but her. Just my opinion. As bad as our choices are, I find it hard to envision a comeback from a Hillary presidency. Just look at how the media has controlled what we think about things while the GOP was in power. Again, once they take it, how do you think we’ll get it back?

How’s my statistical math…(although if still alive, Sammie Davis Jr. would be a shoe in)
right2bright on December 11, 2007 at 11:45 AM

How anyone missed this nugget of laughter, I’ll never know…

Am I to believe that all 40%-50% of eligible voters who won’t be voting are all voting for Hillary? Nonsense.
Hollowpoint on December 11, 2007 at 5:04 PM

Actually, I think he just meant that if you are a voter who stayed home instead of voting, then Hillary by default does not a have your vote AGAINST her. I could be wrong, but maybe that’s where he was going?

So now you’re equating Mormons with
militant homosexuals and Godless atheists. Nice.
I’d vote for a Mormon, a homosexual or an atheist as long as they upheld the Constitution and my first amendment rights to practice my religion and talk about it.

Where do you get off putting yourself in God’s place and determining who is and who isn’t a Christian? Also, where do you get off telling anyone anything about Mormonism when you haven’t a clue what you’re talking about.

You deserve Huck and his touchy-feely nanny stateism. Better start eating some big macs, because Huck and the Dems will ban them. I can’t wait for Huck to give the Iranians a big hug too, because that’s all they need to change their minds about wiping us and Israel out.

RightWinged on December 11, 2007 at 12:37 PM

I would. I’ll tell you why.

If Hilary’s elected, the Left will get what it wants from her and give her a pass when events on the ground force her to be hawkish. Plus, we can criticize her for the former.

If Huck’s elected, the Left will get what it wants from him but give him hell when events on the ground force him to be hawkish. Plus, we’ll be expected to defend him.

Who do I support? Mitt & Fred. If Huck’s nominated, I will not vote for him. Won’t vote for Hilary; I’ll either abstain or vote third-party protest.

That doesn’t make me gay, does it?

Again, you can deny it all you want and think you’re sending someone a message by not voting… but all you’re doing is voting for Hillary.

RightWinged on December 11, 2007 at 4:43 PM

Let me put this in simple terms:

Voting for Hillary = Voting for Hillary
Not voting for Hillary = Not voting for Hillary

Me no want Hillary.
Me no want Rudy.
Me no want Mitt.
Me no want Huckster.
Me not vote for Hillary, Rudy, Mitt or Huckster.

Am I to believe that all 40%-50% of eligible voters who won’t be voting are all voting for Hillary? Nonsense.

And I said that exactly where? If I’d rather have Hillary as President, I’d vote for her. I won’t.

A vote for nobody is just that- a vote for neither candidate. The Republican candidate doesn’t automatically deserve my vote, especially if they haven’t earned it.

Hollowpoint on December 11, 2007 at 3:58 PM

Sorry, but the times we live in are too important. I’m not being a dick, but I am being realistic… If you choose to do the “principled thing” and not vote because the GOP candidate isn’t conservative enough, you might as well be voting for Hillary, because you are actively assisting her. People need to look at where the country could be after 4-8 years of Hillary. Do you think we can recover from that very easily, if at all? Look at how the number the media has done on the Republican Party, forcing them to be the pu$$ies they are on a lot of issues… do you think it will get any better once they control everything.

Again, you can deny it all you want and think you’re sending someone a message by not voting… but all you’re doing is voting for Hillary.

So again, you’re on the record as saying you’d rather have President Hillary Clinton, and that you’ll essentially be voting for her.

RightWinged on December 11, 2007 at 2:52 PM

And I said that exactly where? If I’d rather have Hillary as President, I’d vote for her. I won’t.

A vote for nobody is just that- a vote for neither candidate. The Republican candidate doesn’t automatically deserve my vote, especially if they haven’t earned it.

Much of what the LDS believe is here:
http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,11-1-13-1,00.html

bnelson44 on December 11, 2007 at 12:05 PM

Yea well, that’s nice. UNFORTUNATELY, a faith in “god” who used to be a man like we are who attained his “god” moniker by being a good Mormon…and a faith in a “jesus” who was born Lucifer’s brother, has NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THE REAL GOSPEL MESSAGE OF THE GOD OF THE BIBLE, NOTHING to do with the God of the Bible, and NOTHING to do with the Jesus Christ who actually died in our place.

No, it was NOT some brother of the devil sent by a god that used to be a mere man that died on that Cross. And no,Mormonism has NOTHING to do with Christianity other than that it has taken the names of persons of which the Bible speaks, and changed them into other people in order to revolve a false religion around them.

Would any redeemed by the blood of the REAL Jesus Christ vote for a Mormon? How do you pull the lever for a person following a false religion, a person that is, according to the Bible, spiritually dead to the God and obviously brainwashed into following a religion of lies while the truth of God’s Word(the REAL God of the Bible) is hidden from them.

The actual sad fact is that we are seeing everything that stands against the real God of the Bible coming “out” in these days, the rise in American atheism, the rise of pro homosexuals and their lackeys, and now even the Mormons are seemingly “out”, all trying to do the exact same thing…make what they WANT to do and believe “normal” rather than what it truly is…perhaps man really is “waxing worse and worse” and the end times of which the Bible speaks is just a tiny bit closer than we think.

I’m saying that after watching the way the Republicans in Congress and the White House have performed lately, “none of the above” is looking more and more attractive the way things are shaping up.

The “anyone but the Democrat” philosophy is what got us the politicians that made the mess we have now. I’m fed up with fighting my own side and am thus much less willing to compromise by voting “anyone” than in past elections.

Roughly half of eligible voters in a typical Presidential election don’t vote. I’ve voted in every one since I was 18 years old, but don’t really have a problem joining them this time if we can’t nominate a candidate with a reasonably conservative record.

Hollowpoint on December 11, 2007 at 1:44 PM

So again, you’re on the record as saying you’d rather have President Hillary Clinton, and that you’ll essentially be voting for her.

Ha! Hey, I’d vote for you, but you’d be the first president whose face no one has seen. :)

amerpundit on December 11, 2007 at 11:46 AM

One less chiseling job on Mt. Rushmore – saving the environment, while still having a great president. Even Nobel winner Mr. Albert Gore woud approve.

Any other explanation here besides the media blowing the Mormon issue out of all proportion?

Yes. Everyone thinks they’re superior to those around them: More intelligent, more moral, more tolerant. It doesn’t necessarily mean that these are hidden significant prejudices of their own, just that they perceive these prejudices as being more significant in others than in themselves. It’s why Kerry won the Democratic nomination in a landslide even though he was the least likeable candidate. Voters assumed their neighbors wouldn’t vote for Dean or Edwards, so they voted for the “most electable” candidate. I guess we’ll see whether Republicans fall into the same trap this time around.

So, you’re saying you’d rather have President Hillary? I’m not saying I’m some Romney fan, but the point Huckabee doesn’t stand a chance in a general election. RINO or not, this is an anyone but Hillary election. Sorry, but that’s the way it is.

RightWinged on December 11, 2007 at 12:37 PM

I’m saying that after watching the way the Republicans in Congress and the White House have performed lately, “none of the above” is looking more and more attractive the way things are shaping up.

The “anyone but the Democrat” philosophy is what got us the politicians that made the mess we have now. I’m fed up with fighting my own side and am thus much less willing to compromise by voting “anyone” than in past elections.

Roughly half of eligible voters in a typical Presidential election don’t vote. I’ve voted in every one since I was 18 years old, but don’t really have a problem joining them this time if we can’t nominate a candidate with a reasonably conservative record.

That represents trading one big government, naive on foriegn policy RINO for another. No thanks.

Hollowpoint on December 11, 2007 at 11:53 AM

So, you’re saying you’d rather have President Hillary? I’m not saying I’m some Romney fan, but the point Huckabee doesn’t stand a chance in a general election. RINO or not, this is an anyone but Hillary election. Sorry, but that’s the way it is.

Nothing. They’re totally ducking the question by claiming, essentially, that they’re only talking about freedom of religious conscience, not freedom of conscience generally.

Allahpundit on December 11, 2007 at 12:13 PM

But isn’t what he was talking about? Religious freedom had a lot to do with this country’s founding. People then were free to not believe if they chose to, but people weren’t free to believe in a different idea about the same religion.

Nothing. They’re totally ducking the question by claiming, essentially, that they’re only talking about freedom of religious conscience, not freedom of conscience generally.

Allahpundit on December 11, 2007 at 12:13 PM

They should have just lied, and said, sure, dude, it would be okay. Instead, they have one pissed off blogger on their hands. Really, though, its the law of diminishing returns. He’s already milked the social cons for all he can. Now he’s actually gonna start costing himself votes if he isn’t careful. Has to chap his hide that most of the social cons are abandoning him for the resident lib in the race, Sir Huckleberry.

I’m not sure this is good news for Mitt.

Exit question: Say, who’s at the bottom of the pile?

I would have guessed a homosexual would be at the bottom. It’s possible people like Christopher “God Is Not Great” Hitchens haven’t done much good PR for atheists, at least not the good PR that Mitt has done for Mormons.

These things should be taken into account with the poll, Allah. The prominent atheists these days have made their opinions on religion very clear, so much so that it’s likely believers are worried about losing religious freedoms.