Read the previous articlle posted on this blog, and then consider this CURRENT "eatured" article on my AT&T default page provided by Yahooo 'News" (Bocycott both Yahoo and AT&T):
"Evangelical dilemma in South Caroline: Vote fo r an adulterer or a Mormon?" (With my eyesight, I can't figure out where Yahoo "News' got this EVIL article typical of today's EVIL media, but I am perfectly willing to give the "credit" to Yahoo. They obviously want the credit, and I am giving it to them-EVILAnti-Christian peop;le that they obviuoslly are. I am still waiting for the healdine, by the way: "Is Obama really a Christina, or is Bill Maher right that he is a secular humanist?" Don't hold your breath.
See lthe last article. WHO is it who is tryiong to put RELIGIN in POLITICS? Is it evangelicals? Not that I can notice. They appear to be simply trying to figure out what is best for the CONTRY. They are the TOLERANT ones here. Nop. It is the EVIL MEDIA who are injecting religion in politics, and in the most EVIL way possible.
sI will not try to exlain this much, because that above quoted headline speaks for itself. First, is it not OBVIOUS tghat the media--this being a typical sentimetn exprfessed throughout our media--are LIARS. I that really the 'choice" in South Carolina? Nope. That is an obvious LIE. But what else is new for our EViL media. Message to Yahoo: You are an EVILL company. Should evangelicals voteon the NARROWEST and MEANEST view of their religion? Does being an "adulterer" (human weakness, as we are LL SINNERS--Christian doctrne) even RELEVANT to whether you should vote for a person for President? Why is this question DIFFERENT for an "evangelical". Do you MEDIA PEOPE BELIEVE IN ADULTERY. Well, maybe you do. The headline isABUSRD, and as EVIL as you can get--as dESPICABEL as lyou can get, in the wrods of Newt Gingrich. The headline assumes that "evangelicals' SHOUD "vote their religion" in the narrowest, most false sense possible.
Yes. I know. What the headline really "assumes"--why YahooIS anti-Christian--is that "evangelicals" are NARROW MINDED HICKS who areincapble of looking past single aspects of their religion and voting for what is best for the country. But the media is willing to USE what they think of evangelicls to "turn" evangelicls agaisnt the GOP candicates (hoping that they wil disregard that OBAMA IS NOT A CHRISTIN). No, lthe media people are not "hicks'. They are wore. They are EVIL, DISONEST, BIGOTED, STuPID and the WORST LHPOCRITES TO EVER WALK THE EARTH.
REad that headline again. I dont' see how you can fail to agree on me on this. Again, I say that as a person who has ABANDONED the GOP as an institution, and has said ltat I cannot support EITHER Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich (even though NOT be cuase of adultery or Mormonism). Of course, ou also know that I am an AGNOSTIC.
If you can read the above-quoted headline, and not recognize it as EvIL, then I am sorry for you. You should appply for a job with the mainstream media (including the unfair and unbalanced network).
This mere "cncentration" on the "evangelical vote" is an EVIL thing, as is the attmept to DIVIDE us by talkng about the "Hispanic vote", the African-American votte", the "white vote", the female vote", or any of the rest of the EVIL POLSS that the media try to throw at us to indicate that we should not vote FOR THE OCUNTRY (rather than our particular group). Does it bother our EVIL MEDIA that "narrow-minded evangelicls" appear to be LESS INTERESTED in religion in politcs than our EviL MEDIA? Not so you can notice, but therse pople (our media) have NO SHAME. Yep. I do think that your average "evangelical" is ar SUPERIOR to your average "journalist". it is not even close. For one thing, I think your average evangelical IS capable of SH:MAE, and some sense of right and wrong.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checknig (bad eyesght). Yep. These past few articles in this blog should tell you WHY Newt Gingrich got a standing ovation in South Carolina, and may win South Carolina. Romney was dong perfectly well so long as his only "problem" was that he is a "Mormon". Your average evangelical is boviously more TOLERANT than your aveage "journalists". Romneyh has gotten into trouble because he cannot connect with MOST PEOLE, and NOT because of any thing in the Mormon religion. As I have said repeately in this blgo, evangelicals are like anyone else: they would LIKE to vote for someone who obviously shares theri "values'. However, they are willing to PUT THEIR COUNTGRY FIRST. I hope--a hope I have expressed for YEARS in this blog--that evangelicals have finaly STOPPED letting HYPOCRITES and EVIL LIEARS of the media lead them around--cynically tyring to "play" them like that disgraceful healine above. As I have stated in this blog, evangelicals would have NO better FRIEND in the White House than I would be, if they are interested in POLICY (as they should be, as far as POLITICS is concerned). Me being an agnostic may mean I go to Hell, but your VOTE should not be about who you think might go to Helll. It should be about who can best REPRESENT your agenda in political office. Let me be as blunt as I can: No one KNOWS who is going to Hell. It is arrogant of yo uto even think you know. By that, I am not even talking aobut my own agnostic beliefs. I mean that yo have NO WAY of knowing what is really in another person's heaart, when God judges on Judgment Day. You actually have a much BETTER chance of making a decision on who will advance YOUR AGENDA in teh White House, I would go so far as to say that, for most evangelicals, PART of tghat agenda is a HEALTHY COUNTRY faithful to our founding principles, including a healthy ECONOMY and jobs. "Adultery" and "Mormonism" really are IRRELEVANT to this, EXCEPT if you have a chance to vote for "one of your own" who ALSO is at least as good as others in leading this country. By this standard, it would be RARE that you should "votge your religion", except as to a person who you believe will advance your AGENDA (including the policy porsitions your religon leads you to support).