Exit polls are EVIL things theselves. They are incaccurate and serve NO peruporse other than to attempt to DIVIDE us into groups. For John King, however, joined by Anderson Cooper and Wolf Blitzer, however, exit pollss are even more EVIL than that. They repesent a tool for RELIGIOUS BIGOTRY (notto mention outright stupidity).
Now it turned out that almost ALL grooups voted for New Gingrich in a bbout the sam epercentage: "evangeliclas", "conservatives", "married women": They ALL gave a little more than 40% of their votes to Newt Gignrich. The onlyl groupo that did not was "moderatges", and Gingrich was pretty close to EVEN there. Plus, after the New Hampshire primary, polls were showng Mitt Romney with AT LEAST a 17 percentage point lead in South Carolina--polls at least as accurate (although just as eveil and meaningless) as the notriously inaccurate exit polls. Th eonly logical conclusion from this is that RELIGIION played NO part in the Gingrich landslide victory in South Carolina. This did not stop CNN from another attempt--part of their "storyline" on the GOP vote--to make RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE an Issue" in GOP politcis (but NOT Democrat poitics) . Thus, CNN attempted to USE the ONE evague exit poll question on religiojhn to advance the CNN EVIL AGENDA to make RELIGION a mjor part of the olitcal debate in the GOP nominiation. This was after Johking--world calas dishonest HPOCRITE---had said it was an EVI thinkg to make Oba'a's religion an "issue", because a eprson's religion (or lack therefo, in the case of Obama) should NOT be an "issue" in poolitics.
The vague exit poll question was: "Was your religion "veryimprotant" in your decisoin on how to vote; "somewhat importatn", and so on. Look how STUPID this question is. What does it even MEAN? If you REALLY believe in your religion, do you not believe that your religion is IMPORTANT in EVERY major decision that you make? Now the questin may have been worded someting like whether it was "imprtant" that a candidate SHARE your religious views, although again the quesint was MEANINGLESS (religious BIGOTRY, really, in the every question itself). But how did the DESPIBCABLE John King (shown to be that by THIS BLOG long before Newt Gingrich showed him to be despicable John King charcterize these voters, and this question, to NODS fraom the BIGOTED Anderson Coop[er and Wolf Blitzer? Here is how:
These people who vote for a cnadidate "BASED ON HOW HE PRAYS" voted like thi....." The hihgighted wores are an EXACT QUOTE!!!!!!!! I promise you,: I could never ake this up. I could not even imagine, even knowing CNN, that ONE MAN and ONE NETWORK could be this EVIL and BIGOTED. This truly is The Anti-Christian Network, and John King, Wolf Blitzer and Anderson Cooper are anti-Chrisitan bigots on teh anti-Christian network This is also,needless to say, The Liar Network.
Did the exit poll questin say anything about peole voting based on "how candidates pray". Of course not, and the very idea is ABSURD. IT is EViL BIGOTRY rying desperately to USE religion--a religion against which CNNN is BIGOTED-as a SMEAR against the GOP. Newt ir ight on this one: "Our 'elites' are ANI-CHRRISTIIAN." That is certainly true of CNN in general, and John King, Anderson Cooper and Wolf Bitzer in particular. "based on how they pray" indeed. How can any person say something like that? Just how bad can Jon King be? I don't think we have even reached the depths of hwow bad he can be. If he will say something THIS BIOTED, there is no BIGOTED thing he would not think or say. As I said, this entire media "focus' on religion and the GOP is a deliberate SMEAR desinged to make religion---as religion--an"issue" on politcs? You doubt me on this? Never do that. Exlain, then why CNN eatured an article, and promoted it on ari, entitled "The Gospel according to Herman Cain." For CNN, the GOP i sall about "religion", the "Tea Party,", and all of those hother things agaisnt which CNN is PREJUDICED. CNN fully agrees with Obama about smal town voters (GOP voters) "clinging to their religion".
No. This is EVIL stuff,. In fact, it does nto really get any more evil than this kind of bigotry. John King, wo asserted on air that there was "no evidence" of "wrondoing" on Solyndra (a LIE), had NO EVIDENCE that people who said religion was "important" in the way they voted really voted "based on the way candidates pray". That just shows how ANTI-CHRISTIAN CNN really is. That is what John King and CNN think of religiion: it is just about the "way people pray". A peson who will say that, of course, cannot really believe in a religion. To people who really believe, eligion is FUNDAMENTAL TO YOUR LIFE. No, it is NOT fundamental to mine, because I am an AGNOSTIC. But iI am not BIOGED, and cluesless, like John King and CNN.
Let me come at this another way. Is a cnadidate's religion "improtant' to Joh King, Anderson Cooper and Wolf Bitzer when they vote? Is it important to Bll Maher (professed agnostic, like me, although really an anti-religous fanatic)? I am sure that these people would say "no", but they would be LYING. I am lplanning a foolow up article on the front page article of one of the main Tennessee newspapers, which my brother living in Nashville did not believe, talking about how the RELIGON of GOP CANDIDATES affects their "thinking" too much (really the very same BIGOTED pont that CNN is trying to push, and certanly believes).
Would John King votte AGAINST Rick Perry, for example, because of the "way he prays"? I guarantee that John King, Wolf Blitzer and Anderson Cooper would vote AGAINST any person whose religioous beliefs are like Rick Perry's, or Rick Santorum's, because they think those religious beliefs lead to a state of mind that si comletely contrary to what CNN people think is proper. U understand that John Kin gwould DENY (dihonest lliar that he is) that he would vote against Rick Perry becaues of the 'way he prays'. He would be, of course, right, but only in the snesne I ham right that john kng has shown himself to be a dishonest, evil person. NO ONE--absoutely no one--would ever say that they vote agasint someone, or for someone, based on the "way he prarys. It is absurd to even say it, and John King is absurd. John King and Bill Maher are likely to vote for someone who is NOT a "undamentalist" Christian--because they think "fundamentalist" Christians don't share their 'values". They don't TURST them. And they know that they are likely to oppose their policy positions. Yet, that is ALL religious people are saying twhen they say that they want to vote for people who "share their religious valutes". They believe that their religous values are RIGHT, jsut as much as Billl Maher and CNN believe that their values are right. Piers Morgan, on The Gay Network, has said epeatedly that he thinks it is EVIL (in effect) to believe, and especailly to say, that homosexual conduct is a "sin". Do yuo believe that Peris Morgan would vote for people based on the "way they praY" (in the sense thae exit poll can be TWISTED in that EviL manner)? How can you not believe that. Peris Mragan would NEVER vote for a "fundamentalist" Christian, amd that is obviisly true of almost all of the peole at CNN. But we dont' have POLSS on that.
We don have pols on whether peole think Barack Obama is a Christian, which he is NOT (as Bill Maher and I agree). But those polls are then ATTACKED, as John King did, on the basis that EVIL people are tying to make "religon" an "issue" in politcs. Did I just ssay that John King, and CNN, have called John King and CNN EVIL. Damn right that is what I just said. It is CNN, and others in the media, that are trying to make the details of a person's religion into something to be exhaustively discussed as a POLITICAL ISSUE. Yep, It is CNN, and NOT either GOP politicans or evangelicals, who are trying to bring discusson of rellition directly into POLITCS. CNN ihas called that an evil thing (in essence) and CNN is right. John King, Anderson Cooper, Wolf Blitzer and CNN are EVIL people for trying to make religion into such a big "issue" in political discusson.
This blog tells you the truth. Three is NOTHING WRONG with a person wanting to vote for a candidate who shares that person's fundamental beliefs. This has NOTHING to do--notwistanding the despicable John King--with "the way a person prays'. It has to to with voing for a person who you are pretty confident SHARES YOUR VALIUES> What is WRFONG is to make RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE, or the DETAILS of religioous belief (such as wheth3er Mormonism is a "cult') in to a POLITICAL issue to be PUBLICCLY ARGUED> That is exaclty what CNN is trying to do, and what even most "fundamentalist" Christians are NOT tryihng to do. Are evangelical PASOTORS out therei CAMPAIGNING against Mitt Romney because a Mormon should never be President? No, except when CNN goes out and LOOKS for one--the BIOTS (referring to CNN). Evnagelical leaders may throw their support behind someone other than Romney because they think such candidate shares their values mroe (as CNNN believes that Brack Obama shares their values more than ANY fundamentalist Christian--especially one who is a member of the GOP)> But these evangelical leaders are NOT out there saying that there is no way you should ever vote for Romney because he is a Mromon. It may have SOMETHING to do with who they coose to support, just as the fact taht a candidate is a fundamentalist Christian may have someting to do with for whom John King votes, but they are not making it an ISSUE to be "argued' in the public arena. That is amost entirely CNN.
That is the difference between right and wrong--between good and evil--as to which CNN has no clue. There is NOTHING wrong with a person believing his or her religion is "important", , even in deciding for whom to vote. There is EVERYTHING wrong with trying to ARGUE RELIGION as part of our POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS (which is exactly what CNN is trying to do, in as dishonest a way as possible) .
As stated in previous articles, evangelical VOTERS have shown themselves to have more TOLERANCE than CNN and the media even come close to having. "Evangelicals' were READY to give Romney a BIG win in South Carolina, until Romney showed he had feet of clay (as a candidate). Evangelicals have shown that they are willng to vote for Gingrich--despite his "sins", and despite the fact that he is a CAHOLIC. Evangelicals have REFUSED to vote for the most OBVIOUS "fundamentalist Christians' in the race: Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann. Reaons: Evanglecials are clearly willing to put their COUNTRY ahead of stict religious doctrine and religoius "judgment' on conduct. Even Rick Santorum is a CATHOLIC. I don't know how you were raised. But I was raised Presbyterina in a small Arkanssas town (Mt. Ida). I was basically "tuaght" that that the CATHJOLIC religion is WRONG--bringing all kinds of idol worshiop and other heresies into the original Chirstian faith ("saints", for examle). What, exactly do you think that the Protestant Reformation was all about? It was about the Catholic Chruch h=having CORRUPTED the Christain relgiion, with a lot of justice. You will remember that history tells us that the Caholic Chruch started SELLING CHURCH BENEFITS, and oterwis becoing obviously corrupt (see Will Duran'ts "Story of Civilization). Popes became POLITICAL, and even had mistresses and children. No, I am not intending to ATTACK the Caholic Churhc, although I was certainly not raised to admire it. The idea that GOP voteres are "voting their religion" is a CNN LIE>
GOP votes may--unlike Obama---tend to BELIEVE in their relgion more than leftist Demorats and CNN "journalists". Would I vote, by the way, for a RADICAL ISLAMIST who endorsed the INTOLERANT form of the Muslim relgion which is taught in Saudi Arabia (from which the Taliban and al-Qaida arose)?? Not a chance. In that sense, religion is important to ME. I actually have no problem with fjudamentalist Christian religions, as an agnostic, even if the thinking is alen to mine (even as we end up in the SAME political place) . Indded, I have NEVER had a "fundamentalist Christian" be UNKIND to me, even though I never misrepresent my religion (although I regard it as RUDE to act like the ACULU and try to TRASH another' preson's religion) I have my l Have my limits, however, and I refuse to support the intolerant religon of RADICAL ISLAM. I could NEVER vote for a person who believed in that version of Islam, and it has NOTHING to do with how "they praray". I still can't believe John King said that, but I heard him. I think I COULD, by the way, support a Msulim who made it clear that he did NOT support the intolerance of extreme IslamistsBut that is one case where I wuold expect the canddiate to make clear exactly what KIND of Muslim he was. The same would apply to the POLYGAMIST Mormon sects who are no lnger part of the Mormon relgion (even thought the BIGOTS at the AP--EVIL BIGOTS--had the nerve to run a "serious" news' story in 2008 taht Mitt Romney's grat-grandafter ahd been a polygamist). But I had no problem, unlike CNN, with regarding it as a SMEAR to assert taht Sarah Palin had belonged to a Christian church belonging to that Christian movement known for "speaking in tonges". That was CNN BIGOTRY, pure an dsmple. Religious doctrine does not concern me, unless it is doctrine of INTOLERANCE of other religos IN THIS WORLD (should be left to GOD) .
Now, when I use the word "intolerance", that is what I mean: intolerance of RELIGOUS BELIEFS that do not lead to human sacrifice, terrorism or the life. What CNN means when ththey talk about "tolerance' is "tolerance" of CONDUCT that is not part of the "way eple pray", at all. If you don't believe in abortion BECAUSE of your relligon, there is nothing wrong with that. Technically, if you reALLLY believe in teh Christian, you should believe that ALL morality comes from GOD,, includin gyour opposition to MURDER of an adult. Abortion is a SECULAR issue, no matter why you believe it should be illegal. That is ture of homsexual conduct, polygamy, incest, pedophilia, beastility, or any number of other things. It is a person's RELIGION that should no be a DEBATED political issue (like whether Catholics go to Hell, or whether Mromonism is a cult). Those thinhgs can be debated THEOLOGICALLY, and you may prefer to vote individually for someone who shares your IMPORTANT beliefs in this area, but it is an EVIL thinng to start debating these things as part of our political campaigns.
Nope. It is NOT okay to try to figure out whether religion has an "influence' in how people vote. In ther first palce, as with CNN, there is ALWAYS a hiddne political agenda. IN the second, palce, as stated, it DIVIDES us . Yep I DO think that it is REACIST tot try to separate racisl and ethnic groupos in terms of how they vote. So What? What are wesupposed to DO if Hispancis vote more for Democrats than the GOP? It is IRRELEVANT to any public policy issue, just as it is IRRELEVANT who evangelicals vote, as distinguished fomr FAT PEOPLE. It is just an invitatin to BIGOTRY, and that is how CNN uses it: to advance anti-Christian bigotry. No, even if 100% of Hispanics vote Democratic, it should NOT cause GOP politicians to change what they think is right for ALL of the peple If you don't underastand this, then you shuld appply to work in the mainstream media. We should, for example, do the RIGHT policy on illegal immigraitni, NOT the policy that "appeals" to Hispanic VOTERS. Sure, we should EXPLAIN to Hispanic voters why our olicy is RIGHT, , but his PANDERING to GROUPS is an evil thing encouraged by "exit polls" (and other polls).
Say 2/3 of evangelicals, or 3/3 of Hispanics, vote a certain way thinking they are advacing their "group interst". Is there ANY reason to assume that the 2/3 is right, and the 1/3 wrong? Nope. In fact,g read John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty", on whihc I did a term paper in my college philosophy class. Joun Stuart Mill's CORRECT idea of "liberty" can be summed up in this one sentence (foreign to leftist, including CNN): 'All of the people of the world but one are no more justified shutting up that one person, than that one person would be in shutting up the entire rest of the population of the world." Evangelicals have a right to ACT upon their religious beliefes, just like Bill Maher hass a RIGHT to actu upon his belief in "secular humanism" (which he corretly says Barak Obama shares). What evnagelicals, Bill Maher and CNN do NOT have a right to do is SHUT UP their opposition. CNN and leftists make much more effort to do tha than evalngelical Christians. You should see why I like Ron Paul, even though hI think he is (politically) NUTS. I am more conservative than I am libertarian, but I do have strong libertarian leanings. And you already know I am a SKEPTIC, becase I am a religouis agnostic (a real one, who is not even sure I am right, rather than a FALSE, intolerant one like Bill Maher and the anti-Christian bigots of CNN).
Jesus (pun intended). Voting "basedon the way they pray". I still don't believe that John King said that. He, and CNN, are WORSE than I thought, and my opinion of them was already as low as I thought it could get.
P.S ; No proofreading or spell checknig (bad eyesight).