Originally posted by whodeyDon't have to imagine it. Bush used it an inordinate number of times - breaking new ground, if I recall correctly. And I heard a comment recently on the BBC news that Obama has already mentioned God, publically, more often than Bush did in the same period of time.
That is some theory, however, can you imagine politicians using Gods name today?
1 edit
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperTrue -- but how many politicians ever utter the name "Jesus" or "Allah" or "L.Ron Hubbard" in public?
What planet are you living on? Politicians throw the word "God" out there left and right to score political *points*
I recall Bush naming Jesus as his favorite philosopher. Any others?
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyBut the current healthcare insurance system is going bust.
So are you in favor of universal health care if the majority of Americans continue to oppose it? I can gaurantee that the powers that be will shove it down their throats regardless. So much for our freedoms.
I think part of the problem, and why it will be shoved down our throats, is that the current entitlement program of Medicare/Medicaid is going bust ...[text shortened]... ne all in the name of "fixing the crisis".
That is the devil I know and I don't prefer it.
Employers are having a harder and harder time covering their employees while trying to compete with companies overseas that don't have to do this -- and insurance companies have become very creative in finding ways to avoid paying for treatments that they supposedly cover.
The government aren't the only "powers that be" -- those insurance company people also wield a great deal of power. Why don't you fear them as much?
Originally posted by FMFYes. Sucking up to God is like kissing babies in American politics. Always has been.
Don't have to imagine it. Bush used it an inordinate number of times - breaking new ground, if I recall correctly. And I heard a comment recently on the BBC news that Obama has already mentioned God, publically, more often than Bush did in the same period of time.
Obama even used his religion as an excuse for his odd opposition to gay marriage (I say odd only in light of his other positions, not because I have anything against that position).
Originally posted by sh76Obama's position on gay marriage is an attempt to have it both ways and set up a "different but equal" system. Gays can have the same water, but just can't drink out of the same water fountain.
Yes. Sucking up to God is like kissing babies in American politics. Always has been.
Obama even used his religion as an excuse for his odd opposition to gay marriage (I say odd only in light of his other positions, not because I have anything against that position).
I can't wait until the time when someone can come out and say they are an atheist and not ruin their chances at being president.
That's not to say I'd vote for someone for being an atheist, I just can't wait until it is no longer a disqualifier.
Then I'll wait for the first gay married atheist president! 🙂
Originally posted by sh76Truth be told I think Obama is actually against capital punishment and for gay marriage. But admitting so would have killed his election.
Yes. Sucking up to God is like kissing babies in American politics. Always has been.
Obama even used his religion as an excuse for his odd opposition to gay marriage (I say odd only in light of his other positions, not because I have anything against that position).
Originally posted by PsychoPawnMaybe Barney Frank?
Obama's position on gay marriage is an attempt to have it both ways and set up a "different but equal" system. Gays can have the same water, but just can't drink out of the same water fountain.
I can't wait until the time when someone can come out and say they are an atheist and not ruin their chances at being president.
That's not to say I'd vote ...[text shortened]... nger a disqualifier.
Then I'll wait for the first gay married atheist president! 🙂
You can hit the trifecta. Gay. Jewish. (probably) Atheist.
Originally posted by sh76He'd do 😛
Maybe Barney Frank?
You can hit the trifecta. Gay. Jewish. (probably) Atheist.
He has a boyfriend so he's close to being married I guess.
There's another thing - would it also be as much of a disqualifier is a presidential candidate was single?
Can you supposedly get the "family values" vote without having a wife? What if they were single and divorced?
I still think Obama should have started his inauguration speech with "Asalam Aleykum" just to watch the lunatics heads explode.
Now if the progressives had been in charge, I think these would have looked a tad bit different. They would have gone something like this.well, would you rather have it like this:
1. Right to free speech, so long as it is politically correct and not "offensive".
2. Right to a free press, so long as both sides of the arguement are offered so as to be "fair". Otherwise is will not be allowed.
3. Right to free worship, so long as the ...[text shortened]... and seizure. The courts will then later tell you exactly if the state was "unreasonable".[/b]
1. right to free speech, so long as it is racist and offensive
2.right to free press, so long as it is heavily biased and dominated by the right.
3.right to free worship, so long as it is christian and also, all representatives of the people should claim they talk to God and receive instructions from him.
4.right to a trial by jury, so long as you have no right to defend yourself.
5.Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, so that you can make home-made bombs without any trouble.
is that what you're proposing?
1 edit
Originally posted by generalissimoMaybe, what he's proposing is:
well, would you rather have it like this:
1. right to free speech, so long as it is racist and offensive
2.right to free press, so long as it is heavily biased and dominated by the right.
3.right to free worship, so long as it is christian and also, all representatives of the people should claim they talk to God and receive instructions from him. ...[text shortened]... re, so that you can make home-made bombs without any trouble.
is that what you're proposing?
1. right to free speech, regardless of whether what you say offends other people
2.right to free press, regardless of what the political opinions of the members of the press are
3.right to free worship, regardless of whether your worship offends other people
4.right to a trial by jury, as long as the interests of the state and the victims are given equal consideration to those of the defendant
5.Freedom from search and seizure, which can only be excepted by the government for good cause, such as with a search warrant issued by a neutral magistrate or by an exception to the warrant requirement that justifies the search
Originally posted by sh76that sounds much better.
Maybe, what he's proposing is:
1. right to free speech, regardless of whether what you say offends other people
2.right to free press, regardless of what the political opinions of the members of the press are
3.right to free worship, regardless of whether your worship offends other people
4.right to a trial by jury, as long as the interests of the ...[text shortened]... by a neutral magistrate or by an exception to the warrant requirement that justifies the search