Hahahaha! You not knowing the meaning of "infer" is NOT splitting hairs. What it amounted to was YOU bearing false witness against Elizabeth Dole, Mr. or Ms. Holier-than-thou! Dole simply stated the facts. She IMPLIED nothing. YOU concluded that the Hag was godless, then accused Dole of wrongdoing because she dared tell you the truth... ...but I LOVE the way you change your tack after your little faux pas and now it's, "shouldn't she represent non-believers too?" You are obviously much more of a die-hard Democrat than a theologian. If evidence came out that Hagan engaged in canabalism, you'd defend her.... ...and no, I'm not IMPLYING that Hagan is a canibal, so don't INFER that. I could personally care less if Hagan was a witch who bathed in blood. My opposition to her is that she is part of the planned Socialist destruction of America, as we know it.