True dat Bugley.
Just finishing up my thoughts, I'm done now :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't edit well on this phone - I am disturbed by the dismissal of the signs presence, not blanked by it. :-P
|
I can't edit well on this phone - I am disturbed by the dismissal of the signs presence, not blanked by it. :-P
I don't quite know what you mean by not blanked by it, but I don't dismiss the signs, I know there are racists in both the far right republican party and the tea party, I also know there are racists in the democratic party. I do not however think they are representative of the group nor as influential as the people who are in the opposing party and haven't been to the events/talked to the people make it out to be.
Anywho Cain is doing really well right now, I hope his momentum continues to build, I think it would be amazing to see an election between a black man and a mixed man.
Most conservatives appoint strict constitutionist judges before they worry about them being pro-life or pro-choice.
Everyone claims to be a "strict constitutionalist," just as everyone claims to be an "above-average driver" and everyone claims to be "politically moderate." What that means is that they're 100% strict about phrases or parts of clauses that seem to support whatever their position already is, and are anxious to ignore or creatively interpret the other parts. I think that's true of roughly 100% of everyone on earth, liberals and conservatives alike.
Regarding Row v. Wade as a primary driver for appointing justices.
|
|
Anywho Cain is doing really well right now, I hope his momentum continues to build, I think it would be amazing to see an election between a black man and a mixed man.It would be great. I'd love to be proven wrong about racism on the right. It would raise my opinion about the whole country.
I think his momentum will drop off. I still think, as I said earlier, that the shine has worn off Perry and people are looking for somewhere to go. Cain's just the hot new frontrunner of the week.
I do think he'd be a horrible president, his policies would be disastrous and he's never had any experience working with a legislature.
Honestly though, don't you think that of pretty much any republican candidates?
Most conservatives appoint strict constitutionist judges before they worry about them being pro-life or pro-choice.Everyone claims to be a "strict constitutionalist," just as everyone claims to be an "above-average driver" and everyone claims to be "politically moderate." What that means is that they're 100% strict about phrases or parts of clauses that seem to support whatever their position already is, and are anxious to ignore or creatively interpret the other parts. I think that's true of roughly 100% of everyone on earth, liberals and conservatives alike.
Regarding Row v. Wade as a primary driver for appointing justices:
"In June 2011, Rep. Bachmann signed the anti-choice Susan B. Anthony List’s Pro-Life Leadership Presidential Pledge, in which she vows to appoint judges who will likely overturn Roe v. Wade, to appoint cabinet and executive branch officials who invite political interference in the federal government’s research process, and to defund Planned Parenthood." Her campaign is very proud of this. Of course, Ron Paul, Santorum, Polenti, and Gingritch signed the same pledge.
Yep. Not gonna vote for any of them.
Everyone claims to be a "strict constitutionalist," just as everyone claims to be an "above-average driver" and everyone claims to be "politically moderate."
In fairness, 99% of a population may be above average at something, which is why mean is generally considered a poor measure of central tendency.
Honestly though, don't you think that of pretty much any republican candidates?
I know this wasn't asked of me, but I'd like to respond.
I don't feel this way about Ron Paul and I'm borderline on Romney. I'd actually quite like the Mitt Romney who was Governor of Massachusetts. I'm not particularly fond of the political animal he's become when he has to pander to the right wing Republican base.
Anyone else is pretty much a non-starter. More than anything I respect intellect in a candidate. I think Gingrich is a very smart guy, probably the smartest of the bunch, but he's also about as far from my beliefs as one can be and kind of a d-bag.
Yep. Not gonna vote for any of them.
Found a better link. Notice Rick Perry, with the cat-ate-a-bird smile, has been prominently added to the list after Bachman, Gingritch, Paul, and Santorum.
Interestingly: "The following candidates refused to sign the pledge: Herman Cain, Gov. Jon Huntsman, Gov. Gary Johnson, Gov. Mitt Romney."
Everyone claims to be a "strict constitutionalist," just as everyone claims to be an "above-average driver" and everyone claims to be "politically moderate."In fairness, 99% of a population may be above average at something, which is why mean is generally considered a poor measure of central tendency.
For that to work that 1% has to be really, really, really horrible.
When you are talking about a population of 300,000,000 then average gets pretty close to the median, I suspect.
Greg
Cain apparently refused to sign only because, as President, he didn't think it proper to commit to "advance legislation". He has said that he would only appoint pro-life judges.
Well, yeah, he's a Southern Baptist preacher, isn't he? I mean, no one expects him to be anything other than extremely socially conservative. Aside from anchovies, fire and brimstone are his stock in trade.
I think my ideal pair on the Republican side would be Romney for Prez and Cain for Vice-Prez. Romney's "flip-flopping" isn't really a negative for me personally, I see it as political pragmatism, which I believe is really necessary to get things done. Sure push for your ideas, but you got to be willing to bend to get things done.
Now if say, Perry-Bachmann was the ticket, I'd probably vote for Obama.
I think my ideal pair on the Republican side would be Romney for Prez and Cain for Vice-Prez. Now if say, Perry-Bachmann was the ticket, I'd probably vote for Obama.
I'd probably vote Romney if he were nominated. (Although I personally like Huntsman better, I'm pretty sure he's only in the race at this point to poke fun at Perry and Bachmann.)
Speaking of whom, if it's them against Obama, I might flee to Canada. Or Australia.
|
I think my ideal pair on the Republican side would be Romney for Prez and Cain for Vice-Prez. Now if say, Perry-Bachmann was the ticket, I'd probably vote for Obama.I'd probably vote Romney if he were nominated. (Although I personally like Huntsman better, I'm pretty sure he's only in the race at this point to poke fun at Perry and Bachmann.)
Speaking of whom, if it's them against Obama, I might flee to Canada. Or Australia.
Canada? I was thinking Mars. :)
I was thinking Mars.
I thought that was Michelle Bachmann's home planet? There might be more of them there.
|
Cain apparently refused to sign only because, as President, he didn't think it proper to commit to "advance legislation". He has said that he would only appoint pro-life judges.Well, yeah, he's a Southern Baptist preacher, isn't he? I mean, no one expects him to be anything other than extremely socially conservative. Aside from anchovies, fire and brimstone are his stock in trade.
Are you saying Herman Cain is a Southern Baptist preacher? I don't think so. But he is a Christian with Christian views and values. And he is not afraid to take a stance on those views and values. Now if you are not a Christian, or at least unable to overlook his Christian values, then it is very unlikely that you will be voting for Herman Cain any way. I seriously doubt you would be voting for any of the Republicans, as most of them hold to Christian based values. What many people tend to overlook in these values are the significance given to love, mercy, forgiveness, gentleness and kindness. Traits that many that call themselves Christian often overlook, myself included. But alas another trait of being a Christian is the recognition that we are far from perfect.
Later,
Mazra
I was thinking Mars.I thought that was Michelle Bachmann's home planet? There might be more of them there.
She's from one of the moons of Palin.
For that to work that 1% has to be really, really, really horrible.
You ever driven in California? ;-)
Are you saying Herman Cain is a Southern Baptist preacher? I don't think so. But he is a Christian with Christian views and values. And he is not afraid to take a stance on those views and values. Now if you are not a Christian, or at least unable to overlook his Christian values, then it is very unlikely that you will be voting for Herman Cain any way. I seriously doubt you would be voting for any of the Republicans, as most of them hold to Christian based values. What many people tend to overlook in these values are the significance given to love, mercy, forgiveness, gentleness and kindness. Traits that many that call themselves Christian often overlook, myself included. But alas another trait of being a Christian is the recognition that we are far from perfect.
Later,
Mazra
As far as I know to be a non-Christian is to be a non-viable candidate for POTUS, Republican or otherwise.
Blame voters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Historically, one would think. But there is a vast difference between calling oneself Christian, and actually acting upon Christian values in how one governs. The Pro-Life question is a real litmus test. Christian values would lean that life is precious and must not be taken. It is fundamental in the idea that "Thou Shalt Not Kill." Yet, President Obama and President Clinton both claim to be Christians and supported a woman's right to an abortion. Unfortunately the matter has become a process of law through Roe vs Wade, when it should not be something that is legislated by governments, but left to the good conscience of individuals that need to make this decision. To be staunchly Pro-Life takes out the concept of mercy and forgiveness. In contrast to be staunchly Pro-Choice takes out the sanctity of the life that was lost. It is a very difficult issue. The best choice, maybe no choice, and it should not be something legislated. (Sorry for getting off-topic. But it is a matter that will come up as Herman Cain moves to seek the office of POTUS.)...
Trying to pick the "real" Christians is a fool's game, especially for a non-theist like me. For example, one could just as easily say that an inviolate "Thou Shalt Not Kill" would preclude the death penalty, thereby creating another litmus test -- one which the vast majority of professed-Christan social conservatives would fail in spectacular fashion.
Surprisingly, many non-Christians are also well aware that we are not perfect.
Speak for yourself, bub. ;-)
|
|
As far as I know to be a non-Christian is to be a non-viable candidate for POTUS, Republican or otherwise.Are you saying Herman Cain is a Southern Baptist preacher? I don't think so. But he is a Christian with Christian views and values. And he is not afraid to take a stance on those views and values. Now if you are not a Christian, or at least unable to overlook his Christian values, then it is very unlikely that you will be voting for Herman Cain any way. I seriously doubt you would be voting for any of the Republicans, as most of them hold to Christian based values. What many people tend to overlook in these values are the significance given to love, mercy, forgiveness, gentleness and kindness. Traits that many that call themselves Christian often overlook, myself included. But alas another trait of being a Christian is the recognition that we are far from perfect.
Later,
Mazra
One would think! There is a difference between claiming to be Christian and acting upon Christian values in how one governs. For instance, does Herman Cain believe in Evolution? He has not stated his views on this. But President Obama has by saying, "He believes in Evolution. That there is a difference between Science and Faith." It was a good political answer, typical of many politicians double speak. So which is it, did God create us or did we evolve? For a politician it must be both, or you will lose many Christians on one side and the Evolutionist on the other side. Personally, I had rather they make a stance.
Being a staunch creationist (DNA is far too complex to have come into existence purely by accident over a finite period of time. But that would be for another thread.), I for one would like to see Herman Cain take a stance.
Later,
Mazra
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...Being a staunch creationist (DNA is far too complex to have come into existence purely by accident over a finite period of time. But that would be for another thread.)...
Later,
Mazra
1. You've fundamentally misunderstood evolution if the believe the result to be an "accident."
2. If Kirth reads your post, his head may explode. Do you want that on your conscience? :)
|
|
What non-Christians and liberal Christians object to about what many Republicans call "Christian values" or "family values" is not the " love, mercy, forgiveness, gentleness and kindness", but the emphasis on sexual behavior. The opposition to homosexuality, to contraception, to abortion, to feminism and women's liberation in general. Also the opposition to any...
I really didn't mean to offend anyone. But you nailed it here. You elaborated more on what I was trying to say. It is these "family values" that become divisive when Christians take out concepts of love, mercy, forgiveness, gentleness and kindness in dealing with issues like homosexuality, abortion, etc.. These things should not be matters of legislation, but matters of individual conscience.
Later,
Mazra
For that to work that 1% has to be really, really, really horrible.You ever driven in California? ;-)
Especially when it rains, even just a little bit... *shudders*
|
|
...Being a staunch creationist (DNA is far too complex to have come into existence purely by accident over a finite period of time. But that would be for another thread.)...
Later,
Mazra
1. You've fundamentally misunderstood evolution if the believe the result to be an "accident."
2. If Kirth reads your post, his head may explode. Do you want that on your conscience? :)
I don't think I fundamentally misunderstood evolution. Does not the belief in Evolution takes into concept that we evolved from some primordial slime into what we are today? And if this was not directed by a higher source, would it not be an accident?
Later,
Mazra
As far as I know to be a non-Christian is to be a non-viable candidate for POTUS, Republican or otherwise.
-to be KNOWN as non christian is anyway...
Atheists/agnostics are almost 10% of the population, and we have one avowed congressman last time i checked.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Being a staunch creationist (DNA is far too complex to have come into existence purely by accident over a finite period of time.)
The Dunning-Kruger is strong in this one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are you saying Herman Cain is a Southern Baptist preacher? I don't think so.
I’m a Baptist preacher.Are you calling him a liar?
I don't think I fundamentally misunderstood evolution. Does not the belief in Evolution takes into concept that we evolved from some primordial slime into what we are today?
Yes, you have, and no, it does not. Creationism assumes the origins of life and the origins of man are one and the same. Evolution by natural selection says nothing at all about HOW life came into being; it only describes what happened after it did.
BTW, natural selection as the primary driver for evolution is an established theory (which is a word that doesn't mean what you almost certainly think it means), and the fact that evoltion occurs is a collection of observations. Neither of those are a "belief."
P.P.S. Most Christians (including the Catholic Church and any number of mainstream Protestant denominations) have no issue with God being the driving force behind the fact of evolution. I'm curious as to why you're so sure they're all wrong?
I don't think I fundamentally misunderstood evolution. Does not the belief in Evolution takes into concept that we evolved from some primordial slime into what we are today? And if this was not directed by a higher source, would it not be an accident?
Later,
Mazra
I barely qualify as an armchair biologist -- I daresay there are better options in this thread -- but I'd be happy to have this discussion if you like.
But we should take it elsewhere.
I don't think I fundamentally misunderstood evolution. Does not the belief in Evolution takes into concept that we evolved from some primordial slime into what we are today? And if this was not directed by a higher source, would it not be an accident?
-The short answer is that biology is chemistry and chemistry is not entirely random.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really didn't mean to offend anyone. But you nailed it here. You elaborated more on what I was trying to say. It is these "family values" that become divisive when Christians take out concepts of love, mercy, forgiveness, gentleness and kindness in dealing with issues like homosexuality, abortion, etc.. These things should not be matters of legislation, but matters of individual conscience.What non-Christians and liberal Christians object to about what many Republicans call "Christian values" or "family values" is not the " love, mercy, forgiveness, gentleness and kindness", but the emphasis on sexual behavior. The opposition to homosexuality, to contraception, to abortion, to feminism and women's liberation in general. Also the opposition to any...
So the Republican Christians who condemn homosexuality, contraception and demand that wives submit to their husbands are the ones forgetting "love, mercy, forgiveness, gentleness and kindness", while the Democrat Christians treat gays and women with "love, mercy, forgiveness, gentleness and kindness"?
Cause that's not at all what I got from your earlier post?
By their fruits shall ye know them.
|
|
Are you saying Herman Cain is a Southern Baptist preacher? I don't think so.I’m a Baptist preacher.Are you calling him a liar?
Cool. I have listened to Herman Cain a lot, and never heard him mention this. But, if he is a Baptist minister it surely means he will uphold to Christian values, which was my point.
Later,
Mazra
|
|
What non-Christians and liberal Christians object to about what many Republicans call "Christian values" or "family values" is not the " love, mercy, forgiveness, gentleness and kindness", but the emphasis on sexual behavior. The opposition to homosexuality, to contraception, to abortion, to feminism and women's liberation in general. Also the opposition to any...
I really didn't mean to offend anyone. But you nailed it here. You elaborated more on what I was trying to say. It is these "family values" that become divisive when Christians take out concepts of love, mercy, forgiveness, gentleness and kindness in dealing with issues like homosexuality, abortion, etc.. These things should not be
matters of legislation, but matters of individual conscience.
So the Republican Christians who condemn homosexuality, contraception and demand that wives submit to their husbands are the ones forgetting "love, mercy, forgiveness, gentleness and kindness", while the Democrat Christians treat gays and women with "love, mercy, forgiveness, gentleness and kindness"?
Cause that's not at all what I got from your earlier post?
My earlier post talked about Christian traits and not the traits of others. But it is Christians that often forget these traits when dealing with many family values issues.
Later,
Mazra
|
|
Wealth is EARNED! It is not something taken from those that earn it, and given to those that don't. Currently the top 10% of wage earners in the US pays nearly 70% of all taxes. The bottom 50% of wage earners pays less than 3% of all taxes. I think the distribution of wealth is plenty lopsided as is.Later,
Mazra
Wealth can also be inherited so NO IT IS NOT ALWAYS EARNED!
As for the top 10% paying most taxes, what percent of the nation's wealth do they control? What percent of the total wages does that top 10% earn?
But it is their wealth and not yours to take from them.
Later,
Mazra
Wealth is EARNED! It is not something taken from those that earn it, and given to those that don't. Currently the top 10% of wage earners in the US pays nearly 70% of all taxes. The bottom 50% of wage earners pays less than 3% of all taxes. I think the distribution of wealth is plenty lopsided as is.Later,
Mazra
Wealth can also be inherited so NO IT IS NOT ALWAYS EARNED!
As for the top 10% paying most taxes, what percent of the nation's wealth do they control? What percent of the total wages does that top 10% earn?
Well it was earned by someone at sometime (assuming we are excluding Royals here), and that person worked hard to leave that wealth to their decedents.
Is it really right for someone to come in when I die and go to the stack of PF miniatures I have left my children and say, "Yeah, you didn't earn this black dragon miniature, from the very first PF miniature set, that your father left you. So we are going to confiscate it. We'll be nice and let you keep all the dire rat and gnome miniatures though. You have no right to the dragon though and your father had no right to leave it to you."
Its more like keeping the black dragon and loosing the rat.
Wealth is EARNED! It is not something taken from those that earn it, and given to those that don't. Currently the top 10% of wage earners in the US pays nearly 70% of all taxes. The bottom 50% of wage earners pays less than 3% of all taxes. I think the distribution of wealth is plenty lopsided as is.Later,
Mazra
Wealth can also be inherited so NO IT IS NOT ALWAYS EARNED!
As for the top 10% paying most taxes, what percent of the nation's wealth do they control? What percent of the total wages does that top 10% earn?
Well it was earned by someone at sometime (assuming we are excluding Royals here), and that person worked hard to leave that wealth to their decedents.
Is it really right for someone to come in when I die and go to the stack of PF miniatures I have left my children and say, "Yeah, you didn't earn this black dragon miniature, from the very first PF miniature set, that your father left you. So we are going to confiscate it. We'll be nice and let you keep all the dire rat and gnome miniatures though. You have no right to the dragon though and your father had no right to leave it to you."
Nice attempt at deflection. Not at all what's being discussed, but nice. People who think like you would buy it, hook, line, blah.