Barack HUSSEIN Obama, Hillary, or John Mccain?.. Or Huckabee?
Printable View
Barack HUSSEIN Obama, Hillary, or John Mccain?.. Or Huckabee?
u mention his middle name wow im so scared!
Wow... I don't really like any of these.
But I'd definitely go for Obama if it was between them 4...
How about putting RON PAUL in the poll?
WHO?:PQuote:
Originally Posted by 27
I dont like mccan cause he looks like aeriel sherone that cant be good
You're joking right? He is STILL IN THE RACE!
ya i was man. i know who he is.
One of the things i hate about the web is its hard to insert sarcasm into written text.
wow obama is sure powning in the polls
Ha ha. Sorry. I have trouble telling when it's sarcasm sometimes. :P
Who voted for Huckabee?
If you vote for someone, please post. :P
Since Xox is insistent, I'm the second voter for Huckabee. Don't know who the first is, though.
Why does Obama get his full name posted and Hillary just her first?
I'm assuming Ron Paul's not in the list because even though he's still in it, he hasn't gotten a single delegate.
Dr. Paul has won at least 15 through regular primaries and such, also, delegates don't have to vote for the person that wins their state. Hypothetically Dr. Paul could have every delegate from NY, but because McCain got the popular vote he "gets them" but those are just pointless numbers in the long run. So excluding Dr. Paul from everything is extremely biased.
You're biased though, point taken...but I don't think it's very fair for you to call Barack Obama, Barack "Hussein" seeing as the "You're a muslim!" line holds little water and has no proper foundation or apparent truth to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnius Deus
From what I understand, Ron Paul is quite the racist. How true it is I'm not too sure, but the only thing I basically liked that came out of his mouth was "Abolish the Federal Reservere".Quote:
Originally Posted by 27
Not in the least, my friend.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff777
I certainly hope that's not the case, as I was quite impressed with him to begin with and supported his views. However, would you mind humoring me and having a look at this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Elis D.
Wow Ron Paul has alot of baggage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff777
Ron Paul isQuote:
Originally Posted by Jeff777
racist(untrue, this was ghostwritten by someone that worked at his newsletter while he was practicing as a gynocologist, not congressmen, and he apologized for not proofreading his newsletter. He is not racist),misogynist(He himself opposes abortion, yes, but he doesn't advocate abolishing it, his stance is that each state should make the decision, with no federal law one way or the other,anti-gay(same as abortion), and he rejects reality.(I'll give you that one, but if I'm not mistaken every republican candidate does. So this doesn't make him any worse)He wants to turn the United States of America into a theocracy.(he's correct, even though I disagree with him on this issue, SoC&S was created to protect religious freedom from government opposition, not to protect the government from religious opposition)
zOMG a few photo's taken with random people, what is he gonna do? ask each person's personal views on every controversial subject before he takes a picture with them?
I think Hillary should worry about her photo ops. http://prorev.com/hillaryfriends.htm
Obama is friends with Tony Rezko!!1 http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl.../MND6VC4O8.DTL
This may be true...Quote:
He is also a member of the fringe organization Association of American Physicians and Surgeons,
...but this sure isn't, if the OP had cared to explain instead of post propoganda she would have said that these are a few articles posted in the AAPS Journal and is far from the beliefs of every member. thats like saying every person that subscribes to Playboy agrees 100% with a random article written by a random author.Quote:
which believes:
- "humanists" have conspired to replace the "creation religion of Jehovah with evolution.
- HIV does not cause AIDS.
- the "gay lifestyle" shortens life expectancy by 20 years.
Granted, Dr.Paul has his faults, but he's human, and every candidate has faults. Dr. Paul, however, has the fewest faults, and any "real" ones are blown way out of proportion by the Neo-Cons and the media.
Thank you for taking the time to clear that up for me Ellis D. :)
Ron Paul actually has a bunch of delegates. If you go by some news sources they say he has very few but their full of it, and we all know they lie. They been caught so many times just flat out lying its not even funny. He actually has about half of what huckablee has. Huckablee has a heck a lot of a lot less than mccain though. So while Ron Paul could compete with huckblee, neither of them can compete with mccain.
Right now, the only chance huckablee or Ron Paul have, is if something really bad pops up about mccains past and he has to quit. Then Ron Paul actually has a decent shot.
As for the racist comment, I already explain all that to you in that same thread you linked too. He is not a racist, and no one who knows anything about him believes such. I will say it again, look at the thousands of videos of him on the web, some dating back 20 or 30 years. You will NEVER find even a single racist comment from him, because he never said anything racist.
Anyway, hes the only real candidate running, I would never vote for any of the other people listed.
Out of all those listed, I would vote for Obama.
Ron Paul would be my first choice, though.
way to censor ron paul guys.
and yeah nobodies perfect. I would have been happier if Kucinich stayed in the race, but he got shut out of the media so bad. Mccain is a dubya clone. He wants to start a war with iran. Obama really means well, and would be a good president, if he wasn't such a puppet.
Same here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
No problem sir.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff777
I just want to add that this election is going to be up in the air until the final vote is cast in the RNC.
Last I heard from CNN, he had 16. But that was a while ago, he may have more by now.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
I couldn't have put it better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elis D.
Same.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
Obama's got my vote, if I had a vote...
Are you seriously going to vote for Huckabee?Quote:
Originally Posted by Amethyst Star
He seems like a nice enough guy. To bad he's insane.
Does Barrack Obama want Universal Health care?
Yep. His and Hillary's health plans differ only slightly.
Then there's no real choices this election...
No there isn't. The Republican nominee is decided and the Democrats are basically identical on issues.
Yes, Huckabee is nuts.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2.../#gay-marriage
And read the whole thing. :/
Senator Clinton
I'm voting for Obama on Tuesday, and Kucinich to hold his House seat.
I don't think we should get into a war with Iran. Honestly, it's pointless. What we need to do is send a few nukes their way. If all of the Middle East is destroyed in the process, they had some WMD's. If not, they hate us anyway and were going to get some and kill us. Win-win situation.
Why?Quote:
Originally Posted by Taosaur
I wonder how many votes jesus would get if he was on the poll.
my guess is slightly more than huckabeeQuote:
Originally Posted by dragonoverlord
I dont know who the last dude is, mcain is just another white rich old guy, hilary clinton has issues (hopefully she wont be like her hubby tho, IF she wins) and obama is .. meh. So i voted for Obama. Not like i really have a say in this years poll, as im only going to be 17 till december.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeadDollKitty
this is censorship of the media in action people. God bless America.
:wtf:Quote:
Originally Posted by ranma187
She spoke of those guys as if they were the only candidates left.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff777
But aren't they all?Quote:
Originally Posted by ranma187
Well RP is the only one that seems to have the least corruption involement. he's a puppet but he's way smarter than the MSM gives him credit for.Quote:
Originally Posted by Abra
Not really...
I'll give him credit for studying Joel Osteen and completely inmitating him, but otherwise he's a flake.
Lots of talk with not a lot of experience.
Clinton has experience in the WH, and that's what counts.
Not to mention her involvment in other international affairs and her plans for healthcare.
seis i hate to put it this way. But North america is in great dangr right now. and the outcome of this election may ultimately decide the fate based on which direction we go in.
The US currency is being destroyed by central banks who want to introduce a Universal currency for north america. Problem, Reaction, Solution.
Problem: US dollar going down, soon to be stock market crash.
Reaction: the general public goes "Oh noes!!! WTF do we do? what is the government going to do about it?
solution: Central bank puppets in government, "well the amero sounds good, we are even thinking of eventually having it as an electronic currency. Paper money is now becoming obsolete."
and yet again The average dumb citisen gets yet another right, and freedom taken away. RP is the only candidate who won't allow that to happen if he gets in office. And who the fuck cares, where he gets his info from? We all get info from other sources and people. We are all influenced by people who were influenced by other people. You're argument is retarded and invalid.
What argument? I made a statement.
clinton = annoying
huckabee = out
mccain = old/like bush: thinks war is just a state that the country is in (cant say because hes rich, obama was born rich)
I picked Obama (WHO ISNT A FUCKIN MUSLIM). For sake of arguement, where is Nader?
You know universal health care is a socialist idea, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seismosaur
Social progression in the US is a big no-no.Quote:
Originally Posted by Grod
Socialism will prevail!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Grod
History tells us otherwise...Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonoverlord
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grod
Umm....get ready for round 2!
Ron Paul wasn't in it because he has chosen to start concentrating most of his efforts on his reelection to the house.
Wow, talk about American fucking Ignorance. :roll:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Bennington
A win-win is causing a nuclear holocaust?
They don't "all hate us anyway" they hate that our government is so arrogant to try and force Western Ideals on the rest of the world, they hate that we constantly try to police the world, they hate that we've been bombing the Middle East regularly since 1991 with no excuse to do so.
EDUCATE YOURSELF before you spew hate like this, please.
http://www.pubtheo.com/images/socialized-medicine.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
Very, very ignorant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Bennington
Well put, Elis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elis D.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xox
Anything for you :smitten: ;)
The experience Clinton "claims" to have over Obama...is just that of being the "First Lady." Obama has accomplished far more if you ask me, he's gotten in the trenches and done his fair share of work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seismosaur
she has more white house experience. She has been in the white house during many tough decisions and she has an idea of whats important and whats no so important. Other than that, Obama has had more time holding office. Obama still has my vote, she is annoying. I have heard many women dont like her because they feel she conceded to her husband when he cheated on her.
What experiance? She was the first lady, not the president. She has experiance living in the white house, not running the country.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seismosaur
I voted for Ron Paul, wouldn't vote for anyone else, unless Ron Paul's son was running for president. Which he may one day
His names Randall Paul, then theres Ron jr. Paul
so don't fret, his family is big, and theres alota libertarians in his fam!
The one thing I learned from this election is that there is a great many people who want america to be a socialist country. I am totally different on the other hand. I think most people want to go socialist because they think the government will take care of them, they are kind of afraid of what will happen if the government isn't there to support them. Well maybe its scary but people have to stand up on their own two feet. Government isn't always the answer to everything, infact its normally one of the worst answers. That is what I believe and thats why I dislike socialism.
there are alot of Socialist in America, because in America, there are alot of LAZY people who want the government to do everything for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
And thats why Ron can't win, the american people have no responsibility for their democracy, it has been converted from democracy to soft-fascism/socialism
when the people get off their fat lazy mcdonald eating asses and realise that the government doing everything for you screws things up, then a libertarian can win, until then, theres no hope due to the lazyness and socialization of america.
Obama is a Muslim Extremeist... :roll:Quote:
Originally Posted by CiD
Of course, and look at it's succes in other countries that have socialized medicine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Grod
statements contain arguments, or at least are the results of arguments. prepare to be challenged. I speak my mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seismosaur
You seem to be insistent on this fact... you are joking, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seismosaur
Hillary Clinton's and Barrack Obama's policies are virtually the same, are they not?
I dunno
That's because today's politics aren't about dealing with the issues but how well you can dance around them....
Ya its called PR or spin. Today ever politician/government official and people who have to deal with the media are trained in it.Quote:
Originally Posted by SolSkye
Basically its the art of being asked a question and then not answering the question but not to let the asker know it.
The biased media spin. That's another problem in itself. Any reporter working for a major news network that calls themselves a real journalist in this day and age is a lying sack of sh:t. It's more entertainment now, than news. All networks have their agendas, and they propagandize and control too many of the options and over how people think. So much so, that even rational intelligent people can fall prey to it if they sit in front of that box one too many times. We are creatures of habit, after all. You start to see it again and again and again, and suddenly you find yourself actually starting to believe the shit they spin.
Example: They blackout Ron Paul a few months before super tuesday despite the growing strength of his campaign, and all of sudden the average joe has never heard of him or thinks he's no longer a viable candidate come election time. Yet, the media gives the illusion of support to the clearly fringe and unelectable candidate Huckabee (with the least support and money raised) in order to create the illusion of fairness and showing that small guys still having a shot. Just imagine if they'd actually given Ron Paul the same coverage they gave Huckabee. He might've been neck and neck with McCain right about now. But, allowing that would be too dangerous. We can't have another questioning JFK-type in office. Meh. At least he got his message out to a few people and stopped a few other candidates campaigns dead in the water along the way.
Oh well, I suppose when you have that much power and control it'd be retarded not to use it to protect yourself from losing it, so hats off to them. Touché.
Uh.. No?Quote:
Originally Posted by Elis D.
I thought that was plain common knowledge :?
http://cagle.com/news/ObamaObama/images/trever.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by ranma187
for those of you who have watched the Chappells Show don't you think barack obama sounds alot like dave chappels white guy impersanation or dave chappels police officer impersanation?
Hmm...
He seems to act more like Joel Osteen. Like he ust studied him, then imitated him.
He's not Muslim at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seismosaur
His father was raised Muslim, but he's an atheist. His stepfather wasn't religious neither is his mother.
He's a Christian. Unless he's been setting up an alibi since at least 1988.
From WIKI.
Quote:
In Chapter 6 of the book, titled "Faith," Obama writes that he "was not raised in a religious household." He describes his mother, raised by non-religious parents, as detached from religion, yet "in many ways the most spiritually awakened person that I have ever known." He describes his Kenyan father as "raised a Muslim," but a "confirmed atheist" by the time his parents met, and his Indonesian stepfather as "a man who saw religion as not particularly useful." The chapter details how Obama, in his twenties, while working with local churches as a community organizer, came to understand "the power of the African American religious tradition to spur social change":
It was because of these newfound understandings—that religious commitment did not require me to suspend critical thinking, disengage from the battle for economic and social justice, or otherwise retreat from the world that I knew and loved—that I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity United Church of Christ one day and be baptized.
He joined Trinity United Church of Christ in 1988. A megachurch with 10,000 members, Trinity is the largest congregation in the United Church of Christ.
What difference should it make if he is muslim?
None.
It makes a difference when he is an extremist muslim. Which he is lol.
As a matter of fact, I am. I may not agree with him on everything, but I feel that he is the most trustworthy. For one thing, he was the only Republican who didn't dance around the question of whether or not they believe that the Bible is the Word of God. Regardless how you answer that question, at least he didn't throw out some politically correct jargon like everyone else.Quote:
Originally Posted by wasup
And I don't like politics. In fact, I hate politics. A bunch of people spending their lives trying to figure out what everyone wants to hear in order to put themselves in a position of authority... Wrapping what could be easily taken care of in bureaucracy and nickel-and-diming the heck out of anyone they can... Ignoring basic moral principles in favor of appeasing those who wish to rationalize wrongdoing...
Personally, I'd rather spend my time trying to make a positive difference in the lives of those around me than spend hour upon hour trying to come up with the lesser of two (or four/five) evils... or figuring out who's "good" is "better." I'll do my part politically, but I still don't like politics.
I'm voting for Hillary.....
and yes I know she is annoying, and my reasons for voting for her are biased because I am a Christian.
:P
-patience
So you think the USA should be turned into a theorcracy where the word of the bible is king and the constitution should be adapted so it does not contradict the bible?Quote:
Originally Posted by Amethyst Star
Cause thats what Huckabee wants to do.
Wow, whatever happened to Separation of state and Church guys? :roll:
I'm sorry, but this makes me slightly angry.
What about it? I am voting because of my religious personal opinion. Just like others are voting for THEIR personal opinions. No matter how much we fight for it there will hardly EVER be a separation between state and church, from a country that was made BASED off religion.
At least I'm being honest that my voting is biased. I'm not trying to be correct and say my vote won't be biased, because it is. By my beliefs though, the last candidate I would ever vote for is Obama, and if I had to vote for him, I simply wouldn't vote at all.
Sad but true..... religion is part of who I am....
-patience
Sorry to burst your bubble, but regardless of what your pastor or parents say, The United States of America is a SECULAR Country. It was NOT BASED off a religion at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by PatienceMarie
I agree, it is sad, it's very sad that religion has to dictate your life, and if you want to talk, PM me, I'm a recovering Christian of 17+ years.
To both Xox and dragonoverlord: Don't twist my words, please.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xox
I respect Huckabee for his genuine faith. He’s willing to state what his beliefs are and not compromise his convictions. Obama and Clinton (and possibly McCain?) profess to be Christians, and it’s not my place to judge whether they are or not as I have not met them personally. Huckabee, however, by his words and history, has shown that he remains true to what he believes even if his beliefs may be considered “unpopular.”
As far as “separation of church and state,” I believe that that means that government will stay out of telling people what to believe and how to worship. That doesn’t mean that elected officials can’t have their own moral opinions based on their religion, but rather they should rather take the time to discuss why they’re making a decision and take in the opinions of others.
A president does not have absolute power (contrary to how some foreigners view the president… SOME, not all). With exceptions spelled out in the Constitution, the President requires the support of Congress and the Judiciary in order to implement policy and pass bills. There are some things I don’t agree upon with Huckabee, but at this point in time, his view of what will make America better is closer to my views than the other candidates.
If Colbert were running, though, I would probably have to think long and hard about switching my vote, though.
EDIT: And to imply that the US is a "secular country" is to say that the US is an "atheistic country", or at least an "agnostic country." By that standard I would have to disagree. It is as religiously diverse as any other country in the world, if not more so.
I have to agree with Elis D on this one.Quote:
Originally Posted by PatienceMarie
Your country wasnt based of christianity. You want proof? Look no farther then your constitution and im quoting here. "The treaty of Tripoli ratified unaminuously by congress and passed by the President said the following As the government of the united states of america is not, in any sense founded on the christian relegion..."
Furthermore there is evidence to suggest that your very founding fathers were not christians
On your pledge of allegiance the words "under god" wre not added until 1954 until a catholic organazation was able to have the pledge modified witht eh word. On your money the words in god we trust were added much later after the creation of your country.
Your country is not founded on chrfistianity!!!
I won't ask any more questions of you but why do you not like Obama?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4fQA9mt-Mg
Opps excuse e moi.
And Elis D, calm your panties. My pastor or my parents? Good one.
I'm not even discussing anything else in public, but I'd be glad to discuss it through PM DL :).
People get offended too easily over someone elses beliefs. Sorry for stateing MY PERSONAL OPINION.
Even though I admitted it was biased and what-not.
-patience
I was not referring to you when I said that, Ame. I was talking to Patience.Quote:
Originally Posted by Amethyst Star
And I see where you're "coming from", but from my eyes, Huckabee wants state and church combined. Basically, enforcing religion in government.
As for what Patience said - I'm totally agreeing with Elis on this one. I can't believe people are voting off their "personal religious belief."
Read the constitution.
Okay so I'm not entitled to vote for who I want to just because it best supports MY interest??
That's like me telling you YOU can't vote because you don't believe in what I'M saying.
Seriously. Stop being a complete and total hypocrite.
At least I admit I am voting because of a biased religious belief. Holy hell. Everyone votes because of what THEY believe is right because of THEIR personal interest.
If not then voting would always be unanimous.
-patience
edit: ME read the constitution? Last time I checked everything I have said today is in protection with Amendment 1. I never knew voting because of what I believe religion wise was against the constitution. Oh and read above. I already said excuse me. :)
Ya i never said that you couldnt vote for who you want. by all means. Im just saying that the USA wanst founded on your relegion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonoverlord
No that was meant for Xox.
People are getting panties in bundles here for nothing.
I don't get it.
-patience
I would never vote for a democrat.
The "feel good" party.
Religion has a funny way of trying to run your personal life. You can't marry this person. Science is bad. The devil is around every coner blah blah blah. I would really rather have an athiest run America than a devout religious person "cough Huckabee"
Lol "panties in bundles."Quote:
Originally Posted by PatienceMarie
Anyway, go ahead vote for whoever the hell you want. But, this is not a country founded on religion. I was referring to "Separation of State and Church" earlier.
Oh that's your "personal beliefs" eh? I don't have a problem with your "beliefs". I have some as well, much like you. But I see you're voting based off religious belief, okay then..
Oh I agree Nazzul.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster is going to send you to the Burning lake of macaroni for that you evil person.Quote:
Originally Posted by Grod
First off, Huckabee is a media whore who will degrade himself and sacrifice any dignity for a vote. He does ridiculous things on TV shows, not to mention showing up on Colbert Report all the time simply to look "cool" (notice how he doesn't ever talk about the actual issues) and has a goddamn ad compaign with Chuck Norris.
Secondly, he is an idiot. "I didn't major in math. I majored in miracles!" Like, what the hell? Furthermore, he said that he believes the "ten commandments are the only laws we really need." Honestly, is this the type of nation you would like to see? Besides forcing his belief systems on America, he would be incredibly oversimplifying society. No, the "ten commandments" are not the only laws we need. To say so is, frankly, retarded.
Lastly, separation of church and state means that while yes, candidates are allowed to have morals based on religion, their actual decisions should not be based off any religious convictions. Imagine all the oppression and regression that would occurr if we elect a theocratic leader such as Huckabee. Bush looks liberal compared to Huckabee's view of stem cells and abortion. Honestly, does the Christian Bible tell you that aborting a baby of a poor rape victim (poor in the sense she will not be able to raise a child correctly) who will die or will need intense medical care if she gives birth is "ungodly?" If so, you seriously need to reevaluate your faith. Stem cells as well. If you are against stem cells, you damn well better be against masturbation, condoms, birth control, and sodomy. In all cases we are killing "potential life," no? And let's just leave alone the fact that somehow the Christian bible opposes stem cells, which can save MILLIONS of lives, as well as providing new opportunities for all.
Also, if you support Huckabee, you better damn well hate gays. Gays will no longer be able to marry at all. Government-supported homophobia and intolerance will be the policy under Huckabee.
And you are seriously misunderstanding the concept of the United States as a "secular country." Indeed, the people are not secular in nature as a whole (however I would say that this is largely changing as religion grows obsolete through the processes of education and the availability of information through mediums such as the internet), but a "secular nation" refers to its policies. Its policies would carry no inherent religious convictions. As I mentioned above, religious policies would cause huge regressions and the retardation of the societal advancement as a whole. If one observes patterns of society, it can be seen that the level of conservative theism is more or less inversely proportional to the advancement of science.
I cannot argue with your belief that certain religion-derived laws are the best choice for America. Indeed, it is your belief. I can point out the illogical nature of such beliefs (as well as the inconsistency with fundamental theistic beliefs such as tolerance (gays) and the preservation of life (stem cells), but for certain ideas it really comes down to your personal belief. For example, praying in school. We already pray to the flag essentially (which I refuse to do), but perhaps Huckabee would introduce more concrete permissions to do this. Do you believe intelligent design should be taught in classes as an alternative theory? Huckabee would most likely make it so. He doesn't believe in evolution. To have a theory completely void of any logical bearing taught along evolution, a theory (remember, theory being in the context of science) with more independent strings of evidence than gravity, is an insult to your intelligence, my intelligence, the intelligence of our nation, an insult to our progression as cognitive human beings and an insult to humanity as a whole. And if you want vote Huckabee, you better damn well support the teaching of the flying spaghetti monster being taught alongside evolution as well. To me it is not a particularly demanding concept that theories with actual scientific merit, actual evidence, be taught to students. To let intelligent design be taught as a legitimate theory would legitimize the teaching of children of math as a product of the devil, of technology as tiny gnomes doing subdivide tasks, of history as the decisions of gnomes, music the collective euphony of microscopic singing gnomes. Vote Huckabee, Vote Gnomes.
Ultimately, it comes down to your philosophy. It is selfish and intolerant to force others to obey YOUR religious convictions, as well as make them suffer the detriments that such convictions would cause on society. If you believe that you and other Christians are the only ones who should not have belief systems forced on them, and you believe that every other person of any other creed should be forced to abide by Christian ideals and Christian practices, vote Huckabee. I cannot vote. But if I could, I would vote for Obama. Why? He promises a secular government. I don't really care about a candidates religion as long as they promise their beliefs will not affect their decisions.
What are we electing here? The pope? The candidates are running for the position of the president of the United States not the leader of the Church. Therefore vote appropriately.
Once again, I excused myself earlier for being wrong,Quote:
Originally Posted by Xox
AND DARN TOOTEN I AM!!
I am voting for someone I support that has the same religious background as me!
Couldn't get any better.
Oh yeah.... did I already mention I am making a biased vote? Just incase I didn't... I'm making a biased vote.
-patience
What is it about Obama that conflicts with your beliefs? Is he the wrong denomination? To all appearances he's a much more involved Christian than Hillary. Of all the candidates, he seems to have the most simultaneously sincere and sophisticated religious life, though I'd rather a non-Christian could take the highest office in this country.Quote:
Originally Posted by PatienceMarie
P.S.--I voted for Obama today.
Good, you admit it.Quote:
Originally Posted by PatienceMarie
Quote:
Originally Posted by wasup
Hmm, maybe I'm just arguing semantics here, but to state(not imply, I'm saying what our Founding Fathers said) that the US is a Secular country is stating that religion has no basis in governing the country(Treaty of Tripoli, as DO mentioned). I'm not saying that the US is now atheist because of it we're just not Christian, or any other religion, for that matter. People can hold their individual beliefs and can make governmental decisions based off of them; but a theocracy -as Huckabee wants us to be- is unconstitutional and downright ignorant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Amethyst Star
Sorry sweetie, I'm not a cross dresser ;) And I realize the pastor/parent thing was a little harsh, that(US is A Christian Nation) is just a line I got from mine a lot.Quote:
Originally Posted by PatienceMarie
The offer will be open indefinitely.
And I didn't get offended, I just wanted to give you the *there is no way to say this without sounding like an asshole* truth.
Sorry Xox. It was hard to tell who you were addressing.
Well, wasup, I could take the time to address each of your points, but I think you covered pretty much every grievance others have with him that I don't. I believe that for a number of people, those are very legitimate concerns, but I simply don't want to get sucked into a roundabout conversation where I eventually stop posting because a compromise or solution can not be reached. I'm not a debater by nature.
In parting, I pose this question: How would voting for a non-Christian be different than voting for a Christian? Instead of having someone who supports the words "In God We Trust" on money, we'd have someone who says that teaching Creation (aka. intelligent design) in schools is wrong or useless. Somebody's beliefs are going to get stepped on. My vote is to ensure it's not me.
EDIT: Oh, and Huckabee pulled out of the Republican nomination. I'm surprised someone didn't rush here to mention it :) (I'm still voting for him in the Oregon primary.... Stupid state, taking so long to vote.)
Do you really think I would talk about it HERE? Hell nahhh. Too many people that hate/really dislike anything with a Christian view.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taosaur
It has nothing to do with his race though. Since he really isn't a race.... he is more like....a mix....
You can PM me though :D
I admitted from the GET go. That's what you seemed to have missed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xox
No I probably got it from my mom more than anybody in this world. My dad never talks to me about it, even though his father was a pastor, and my grandparents who were pastors never lectured me of religion nor do I believe in church, but my mom was kind of looney.... no one ever listened to her anyways.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elis D.
Too bad :(. I like crossdressers.
-patience
But still, Ame, what is your answer to some essential questions...
- Is the preservation of life essential? If yes, then why oppose stem cells, which could save millions? If you are against it because it kills the stem cell, are you against masturbation, sodomy, condoms, and birth control? Are you against blowing your nose? You don't want to kill bacteria. All life is God's creation, right?
- Do gays deserve rights?
- Is it a good idea to teach intelligent design in schools? If so, shouldn't we teach the belief system of the flying spaghetti monster? It is absolutely as supported as intelligent design.
Furthermore, you misunderstand the concept of a secular president. A secular president is not the same thing as "anti-religious." Secular simply means religion will not play a part. It does not mean there will be hostility toward religion, though. There is a big difference between simply not having religion play a part in decisions, which is generally rather neutral overall in offending people and having a Christian leader. Your vote is not to ensure your beliefs won't be stepped on. Indeed, a secular president would not oppress Christians, they would simply not make Christian policies. That is hardly stepping on anybody's beliefs. Rather, your vote is to ensure that everybody else's beliefs are stepped on.
I'll PM you.Quote:
Originally Posted by wasup
The general trend in this country - and you'll probably disagree - is either to either be a Christian or be against Christianity. I've seen the persecution of Christians growing, either through conscious effort, foolish ignorance, or apathy. I am not (using the words of the great Kaniaz) an "OMG Offended!!!" but I can't help but see "political correctness" slowly encroaching on my ability to worship the God in whom I believe and do what I can to try and improve this country and this world in the way I feel is best.Quote:
Furthermore, you misunderstand the concept of a secular president. A secular president is not the same thing as "anti-religious." Secular simply means religion will not play a part. It does not mean there will be hostility toward religion, though. There is a big difference between simply not having religion play a part in decisions, which is generally rather neutral overall in offending people and having a Christian leader. Your vote is not to ensure your beliefs won't be stepped on. Indeed, a secular president would not oppress Christians, they would simply not make Christian policies. That is hardly stepping on anybody's beliefs. Rather, your vote is to ensure that everybody else's beliefs are stepped on.
And when you say "Secular simply means religion will not play a part," you're saying that religion will not influence society. It sounds like atheism to me.
If I ever get the opportunity, I'll tell you all about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Amethyst Star
My vote is to ensure that we move forward in a way that does the most to increase everyone's freedom and quality of life. That's everyone in the world. Does that trample on your beliefs?Quote:
Originally Posted by Amethyst Star
I guess you didn't see the wink?Quote:
Originally Posted by PatienceMarie
;)
"Political correctness" does not enroach on your ability to worship, it simply gives others the freedom NOT to worship. Giving others the freedom to be free from religion doesn't keep you from participating in your own religion. Perhaps it is an opportunity loss (for example, don't have the opportunity to mass pray in school), but there is a huge difference in not forcing people to pray in school and not ALLOWING people to pray in school. What a secular president is going for here is not forcing people to participate in religion. As I said, that does not keep you from participating in your own religion, does it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Amethyst Star
Well, my point here is the difference between "active atheism" and "passive atheism." If it was active atheism, it would go about oppressing theists. Passive atheism is simply removing religious influence from government. Oppressing theists would, as you said, take away their right to worship. Not teaching (mandatory) religion classes in public schools, removing "in god we trust," allowing gays to marry, and allowing stem cell research (or disallowing entirely independent from religion) is passive atheism. It hardly affects your ability to worship. For the most part, I would say that it actually supports your religion. The ultimate goal of a (secular) nation is to foster tolerance (allow gay marriage, not forcing people to abide by Christian values) and to preserve life (stem cell research). Sounds pretty good to me as an atheist and from a Christian point of view. I understand why you wouldn't want things like the PROHIBITION of religious education and such, but that is not the goal. It is simply freeing others from religious influences.Quote:
And when you say "Secular simply means religion will not play a part," you're saying that religion will not influence society. It sounds like atheism to me.
Ignoring for the moment all the "sorta Christian"s with a distrust of organized religion, the polarization of many people for and against Christianity has a lot to do with the blatant, politically motivated, us-against-them rhetoric coming from Evangelical leaders, and the willingness of congregations to parrot their talking points even when they're unethical positions or deliberate lies. The actions undertaken publicly in the name of Christianity strike many Americans as rather un-Christian. Half the purpose of the Establishment Clause is to protect religious institutions from the taint of politics, of which American Evangelism presently reeks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Amethyst Star
I is canadian so i get to watch the election while laughing at the silly amerks
In the spirit of the topic...
http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/9900/86xu8.jpg
(And this is why I steer clear of anything resembling extended discussion.)
I disagree with you, but any response I try to write doesn't come out the way I want it to. By having a "secular" leader, yes, my religious rights are called into question.
To me, you either hold to your beliefs or you don't. If you claim to be a Christian and say it's okay for two men or two women to marry, you've gone against Christianity. If you're a Muslim and say you don't have to fast during Ramadan, you've gone against Islam. To ask someone to tolerate something that they believe is wrong is, in my opinion, asking too much.
I am not going to "disown" someone because their views are different than mine. I have friends that are gay, athiests, emo, liberal, economists, etc. and I love them to death. But if they believe something that I don't agree with, I won't compromise what I hold to be true in order to accomidate them.
EDIT: I'm done.
I understand why you wouldn't want to do something yourself, but not wanting to tolerate someone else's beliefs, especially when they have absolutely no effect on you? Hasn't history taught us anything of this?
Secondly, what's wrong with debating? Progress would never come if people never communicated. It is not like this isn't a good discussion. As long as it is a respectful and civilized discussion and real issues are being talked about, debates are good. Not simply for the sake of being right or wrong, but to explore and learn more about your own beliefs as well as those of others, question your own beliefs (this is a good thing, by the way), CONFIRM your own beliefs as well as solidifying your opinions (I have found that I think I have no opinion on something, but after debating it I realize I have a very clear opinion and it helps me develop my own thoughts). It is a good thought exercise for both parties. Communication is always a good thing, I don't understand why you don't want to do it. I understand that many do not like to debate because questioning their own beliefs too much makes them insecure, and when they come to a point where they see a belief of theirs that they don't actually believe in, and then cognitive dissonance sets in and they wish to stop participating. But it is best not to resist such change, as it can help one develop as a person.
You can have your beliefs and run your own life, household, and property the way you want to, but that does not mean you have to push the government into other people's houses over victimless activity. I have major issues with Christianity, but I don't believe in trying to take away your right to practice Christianity on you own time and on your own property.Quote:
Originally Posted by Amethyst Star
Oh la la tres chic magnific!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Elis D.
-patience
ron paul:banana::bowdown:
Oui oui, mon cherie.Quote:
Originally Posted by PatienceMarie
Actually its "ma chérie" dude. If the person you were talking to was a guy you would say "Mon" but im pretty sure the person your talking to is a girl so its "Ma"Quote:
Originally Posted by Elis D.
I know you dont care lol i just like being a know it all and anyway this could save you an embarrasing situation with a french lady some day . That type of thing could get you laughed at in real life.
Indeed, I don't debate with those who boldly say they're wrong and biased. Case closed. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by PatienceMarie
Hehe, I noticed that too! /me feels smartQuote:
Originally Posted by dragonoverlord
lol, I don't even really know what it means... "Oh yes my love" or something.
Does anyone know whose currently in the democratic lead?
It's still Obama, but only by alittle.
Fucking hell obama better get his stuff together...oh and btw...right now...Hilary Clinton is is about 40 minutes away from me...-.-
Obama for the lose.
I don't know if you've seen this article by the NY Times that just came out regarding Hilary. Apparently she's considering dropping out of the race.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seismosaur
Edit: Obama or Ron Paul 2008
Funny. Anyway, she can't win. There's no way she can pass Obama.
[Edit] Ron Paul 08. Obama a distant second.
Obama for the lose.
Huckabee's out! Huckabee's out! :boogie:
Thank god.
Sorry Amethyst :P, who will you vote for now?
YAY!
Obama for the lose.
Yeah that definitely won't sit well with Ame's...:( But I think she already mentioned that he was out in the RP threadQuote:
Originally Posted by 27
Still intend to vote for Ron Paul here.
:cheers:Quote:
Originally Posted by Xox
Likewise.Quote:
Originally Posted by GestaltAlteration
Is there really a point to voting for candidates that are no longer in the race? You could use your votes to try and make sure whoever you absolutely don't want to get elected doesn't...
I concur.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
I've heard ron paul supporters blame the media for effectively disqualifying his campgains frm the get go but did Ron Paul actually do any campaigning or atleast any campgagning comparable to the amount of the other canditates?
He seemed to be pretty passive about the whole thing.
Well first off, Ron Paul is still in the race. Second, what does one vote really mean? Nothing. I think it's extremely important to vote even though individual votes mean nothing. There's probably going to be a write-in campaign for Dr. Paul so I'll still get a chance to vote for him in the general election. I support candidates I believe in, regardless of their popularity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
I agree 27.
(OT, Where's your avatar from?)
Mine? I think I stole it from someone while I was browsing another forum.
Hmm, I recognize it from a movie, or a TV show.