Liberals: Of Course We Won’t Vote For A (Republican) Mormon!

IS THE LEFT REALLY ANTI-MORMON OR JUST ANTI-ROMNEY? 

NOTICE THE THREE CHRISTIAN CHOICES – AND NO “MUSLIM” OPTION?

Liberals and religion. Religion and liberals. Arguably, there is no more bastardized relationship in politics. (Yes, in politics.) Liberals love-hate (mostly hate) relationship with religion is legendary; and the irony of it is - it’s not really about religion per se at all; liberals use religion – pro and con – to rationalize, justify and further their political causes.

Let’s take the San Fran Hag – Nancy Pelosi – for example. Ms. Nutjob recently claimed that her Catholic faith “compels” her to support same-sex marriage: “My religion has, compels me – and I love it for it – to be against discrimination of any kind in our country, and I consider this a form of discrimination.” While Pelosi’s little “my Catholic faith” sect embraces homosexuality and gay marriage; the Vatican does not.

Atheists who throw histrionic fits as they incessantly seek “freedom from religion” only seem to fixate on Christian religion, do they not? Why is that? When did you last read of a crazed atheist who was worked into a lather over a Muslim display of faith? Or hell – even a Jewish one for that matter? Atheists’ attacks on Christianity have less to do with Christ – and more to do with the “white right-wingers” who personify everything the Left despises.

During the 2008 campaign – as rumors persisted about the O-man being a closet-Muslim, I don’t recall having heard any liberals denounce him – or Islam – and declare that they wouldn’t vote for O as a result. Truth be told – they probably hoped the rumors were true – which would have increased the chances that their new president would have stood arm-in-arm with them against the Jooos. (He sure didn’t let ‘em down in that respect.)

Let’s face it – Barack Hussein Obama could have been a Zulu witch doctor and liberals would have blindly voted for him in droves – whom are they trying to kid? 

So, this brings us to liberals, Mitt Romney – and Mormonism. Before we continue, I’ll venture a bet that your average “less than informed” liberal has no clue what Mormonism is even about – much less how it could negatively impact the job Mitt Romney would do as president. Any takers?

According to a recent study – The Mormon Dilemma: Causes and Consequences of Anti-Mormonism in the 2012 Elections - nearly 35 percent of those polled said in February they were “less likely” to vote for a Mormon. (Not to beat a dead horse, but can you imagine having seen a study – The Muslim Dilemma: Causes and Consequences of Anti-Islamism in the 2008 elections - during the O-man’s run for the White House?)

The study concluded that concern about Mormonism has declined by roughly 10 percent among Evangelicals, with 36 percent expressing aversion to an LDS candidate in 2007 and 33 percent doing so in 2012.

But among non-religious voters, that number has increased by nearly 100 percent in the last five years – from 21 percent in 2007 to 41 percent in February.

There were also substantial increases in Mormon-averse voters among all liberals – 28 percent in 2007 and 43 percent in 2012. Hey, I’m no statistician, but the question begs to be asked:

Is anti-Mormon bias impacting liberals’ impressions of Romney – or is anti-Romney bias impacting liberals’ impressions of Mormonism? (Pick “B.”)

With jackasses in the Obama Media Group like MNSBC’s Lawrance “I’m a socialist and proud of it!” O’Donnell beating the scary, anti-Mormon drum ad nausem – is there any doubt? After all; lemmings will be lemmings; especially when it comes to following liberal lemming ideology.

The selective inclusion of those with different beliefs – or the lack thereof – by Big Tent Democrats has always been an interesting phenomenon. Hysterical and blatantly hypocritical – but interesting just the same.

^

Um – then there’s that little thing about Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid being a card-carrying Mormon. Wonder why THAT doesn’t bother liberals?

About these ads


Categories: Delusion or Dishonesty?, Liberal Hypocrisy, Liberal Intolerance, Liberal Media Bias, Obama Media Group, Planet Obama, Religion, Religious Persecution, The Obama Media Group, Wake up and Smell the Bias

Tags: , , ,

7 replies

  1. one Romney is not consevative, he is no better than Obama. am not holding my nose for him either, voting Ron Paul. even if is only an fu vote to the GOP. plan on making viable third party before next election of true conservative platform not this crazy crap the GOP has become. that is if Obama does not manage to effect ww3 before then

    • In the twisted view of the Left, anyone this side of Nancy Pelosi is conservative. Besides, who would you rather have appoint justices to the Supreme Court – Mitt Romney or Barack Obama?

      Besides – whether he likes it or not, Romney will be forced to dismantle ObamaCare – based solely on the consistent pledges he has made to do so. Anything short of such would be immediate political suicide.

      Never been a fan of “fu votes,” nor “sitting this one out,” either. Cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face makes no sense to me.

  2. am sorry but the usa has one party system at present and if GOP would not have blocked Paul he could have beat Obama, it’s not over till fat lady sings, we still have RNC and no delegates are committed to anyone till then

    • No need to apologize.

      This is the most important election of my lifetime; shoulda, woulda, coulda doesn’t matter right now. Protest votes and folks sitting out because Romney isn’t conservative enough plays right into the Left’s hands. There IS a difference – whether it’s as dramatic as many of us would like is of secondary concern given the stark reality of the other side.

  3. This is a very important election. If Romney wins, then 2016 will become very important.
    Zulu witch-doctors hail from farther south in Africa than Kenya.
    I do believe your arguments would be stronger if you dropped the name calling of Nancy Pelosi and others. When Joe the Plumber was here speaking to an audience of about 7, someone in the audience referred to her as Nancy Pelousy and brought a smile to Joe’s face. However, it is childish and detracts from serious discussion.

    • We’ve had the discussion previously about the childishness of my name-calling. (You might note that I did, in fact, stop referring to the O-man as Captain “such and such” and similar epithets. ;-)

      Truth be told, I can’t help it. In addition, I’ve always found a bit of humor in sites like Weasel Zippers and Hot Air. The bottom line – for now – is I get a tiny bit of satisfaction out of poking fun at the loons – while worrying about the fate of America at their hands.

What's Your Take?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,306 other followers

%d bloggers like this: