The problem I see with a bunch of people is that they believe they can get a purely secular leader in office. That just doesn't make any sense as America, much to their chagrin is religious. How they expect a secular leader to win the necessary caucus votes much less the general in a place where at least 75% of the country is self identified Christian is just astounding. In reality, they should approach it rather in a way that looks at who's more likely to implement religious programs and thinking into their decision processes. And Ron Paul, commonly called Dr. No is by far the best choice at least on the Republican side. I'd rather have him who outright refuses to pander to religious crazies then a democrat who whores them self for votes as Obama has recently done, at least in the religious aspect.
Edited by obvious Child, : I'm not discussing Law subjects here.
We will know about New Hampshire in a few days, and that will give us a better idea about super Tuesday. Not much point in prognosticating at this stage.
The problem I see with a bunch of people is that they believe they can get a purely secular leader in office. That just doesn't make any sense as America, much to their chagrin is religious. How they expect a secular leader to win the necessary caucus votes much less the general in a place where at least 75% of the country is self identified Christian is just astounding. In reality, they should approach it rather in a way that looks at who's more likely to implement religious programs and thinking into their decision processes.
i agree.
And Ron Paul, commonly called Dr. No is by far the best choice at least on the Republican side.
i might agree but only because of the section i have taken the liberty of boldifying.
I'd rather have him who outright refuses to pander to religious crazies then a democrat who whores them self for votes as Obama has recently done, at least in the religious aspect.
but as you say, it's on the actual issues. like it or not, ron paul's stances on the issues are more imbued with christian influence and pandering than obama's. and yes, abortion is one of those issues.
quote:i might agree but only because of the section i have taken the liberty of boldifying.
Of course. Paul has some pretty crazy ideas that more or less attractive the insane side of the libertarians to him. Pragmatic libertarians may like him in principle, but not agree with his overarching get rid of virtually every federal agency ideas.
quote:but as you say, it's on the actual issues. like it or not, ron paul's stances on the issues are more imbued with christian influence and pandering than obama's. and yes, abortion is one of those issues.
Possibly. But Paul doesn't court them or use them for votes. Frankly, Paul doesn't use anyone for that. A funny example is where a openly racist group donated and Paul stated that his long history shows a diametrically opposed career but he'll take their money and ignore them.
Possibly. But Paul doesn't court them or use them for votes.
i'll take "all talk and no game" over "all game and no talk" on stuff like the religion-in-office issues.
A funny example is where a openly racist group donated and Paul stated that his long history shows a diametrically opposed career but he'll take their money and ignore them.
personally, i would have donated their money to an advocacy group for one of the races the racists were against. not for the PR, but because i'm a sucker for irony.
Ron Paul who's strongly religious has I dare say never voted yes on a bill based on religious morality.
He's against gay marriage. It should also be known that I happen to agree with him. He gives a great response.
Wouldn't voters who are afraid of religious crazies who may use their beliefs in decisions be better off voting for a candidate who while religious, has a extremely long history of saying No to religiously based decisions?
This may come as quite a shock, but a persons religion defines their moral outlook. By calling them "crazies" over it, you might as well indict yourself.
You don't even see your own bigotry, all the while claiming bigotry against them. Its astounding.
“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman
nem, i don't think "religious crazies" was not intended to be redundant. the politicians on the right have been pandering to more or less the lowest common denominator among religious people -- the crazies. not that all religious people are crazy, but that some crazy people are religious.
edit: and for the record, i disagree with paul but not entirely on that issue. marriage is indeed a religious affair, but it can (and is) also granted by the state. the state should be allowed to marry anyone, though no one is forcing anything on the churches.
see. arach is mistaken. rvw ruled that abortion is a medical procedure and that medical procedures are protected under the right to security of person and property under the 4th amendment. that is, that on a sliding scale of viability of the fetus, the government has limited purview over the medical procedures women and their doctors choose to participate in.
the idea of rvw being legislation is the biggest lie of the last 30 years. it was an application of basic bill of rights protections to women and their bodies.
It should also be known that I happen to agree with him.
we're all well aware that you think that just because a group of people have "always been discriminated against" means they should continue to be discriminated against.
but a persons religion defines their moral outlook.
nem, i don't think "religious crazies" was not intended to be redundant.
I think that is exactly the kind of slander he was banking on. Its not like it would be a first at EvC. Unless you completely water down your faith to the point of it being indiscernable, and for all intents and purposes, non-existent, those who stand up for their beliefs will invariably be ridiculed for them.
the politicians on the right have been pandering to more or less the lowest common denominator among religious people -- the crazies.
Oh, right, which explains why they so fervently go after Al Qaeda, while those on the Left harbor them?????
i disagree with paul but not entirely on that issue. marriage is indeed a religious affair, but it can (and is) also granted by the state.
And yet no one cries foul ball that the Constitution is being trampled there. No, its only in reverse that anyone gives a whit. Isn't that interesting...
the state should be allowed to marry anyone, though no one is forcing anything on the churches.
If a homosexual couple wants legal recognition, I have personally have no problem with that. The problem for me comes when someone tries to redefine what a marriage is and to try and amend the Constitution. If homosexuals really just want legal recognition, then they would have no objection to it. Would that seem like a fair compromise? I think it would, which goes along with Paul's sentiments.
“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman
Brennakimi, this vulger, uncivil and inflamitory response is a violation of the following in item 10 of Forum Guidelines.
Keep discussion civil and avoid inflammatory behavior that might distract attention from the topic.
You seem to like using this term. Obvious Child has been suspended for a similar violation and I think it's time for you to comply as well. Please refrain from this term in the future in the way you have done so here. You need to learn to express your dissent in a civil manner as other members usually do, using responses like "I disagree, you're mistaken, not true" etc. Failure to comply may get you suspended.
Do not respond here. If you wish to contest this action, please do so here
Edited by AdminBuzsaw, : No reason given.
For ideological balance on the EvC admin team as a Biblical creationist.
quote:But we are 'toast' as we know it if a big spending liberal with a extremely socially conservative agenda wins the General. Four years of someone worse then Dubya?
™ Version 4.2