31 May 15
Originally posted by whodeyYou don't seem to understand the concept of support for freedom of speech including for the exercise of that right by those who one disagrees with.
So you are OK with Hillary making policy decisions based upon what she thinks Jesus would do even though you may not agree with them?
Got it.
Originally posted by divegeesterProgs will say what they have to say in order to get elected.
Yes.
Are you suggesting based on your comments on the first page that you think an atheist would be the ideal candidate rather than a theist? Fourth time of asking.
Last time I checked, all Presidential candidates seem to claim to be religious. I highly doubt they are. My guess is that is what they are told to get elected.
It's like Obama telling everyone that their health care costs will not go up and they can keep their own coverage. He also claims to be a Christian but never goes to church.
Progs need to lie, otherwise on one would vote for them. If they were forced to tell the truth, democracy would crush them
31 May 15
Originally posted by whodeyFirth time of asking this simple question:
Progs will say what they have to say in order to get elected.
Last time I checked, all Presidential candidates seem to claim to be religious. I highly doubt they are. My guess is that is what they are told to get elected.
It's like Obama telling everyone that their health care costs will not go up and they can keep their own coverage. He also claims ...[text shortened]... e on one would vote for them. If they were forced to tell the truth, democracy would crush them
Are you suggesting based on your comments on the first page that you think an atheist would be the ideal candidate rather than a theist?
Originally posted by divegeesterI assume they are all atheists. After all, they lie, steal, and kill with impunity. They obviously don't think they will ever be held accountable by a higher power
Firth time of asking this simple question:
Are you suggesting based on your comments on the first page that you think an atheist would be the ideal candidate rather than a theist?
Then again, maybe they are like you and just don't believe in a hell.
31 May 15
Originally posted by whodeyWhodey, please, this is the 6th time I've asked you.
I assume they are all atheists. After all, they lie, steal, and kill with impunity. They obviously don't think they will ever be held accountable by a higher power
Then again, maybe they are like you and just don't believe in a hell.
Are you suggesting based on your comments on the first page that you think an atheist would be the ideal candidate rather than a theist?
01 Jun 15
Originally posted by divegeesterBecause whodey's political 'sincerity' and willy-waving is measured out in how facetious and puerile he can be, he has backed himself into a rhetorical corner. Of course he thinks people he agrees with can and should make public policy whilst being influenced by their religious beliefs, but his inchoate dislike of Hillary Clinton and desire to attack her completely obliterates any coherence in his 'argument'. Your unanswered question goes straight to the heart of this.
Firth time of asking this simple question:
Are you suggesting based on your comments on the first page that you think an atheist would be the ideal candidate rather than a theist?
01 Jun 15
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyIs she a fundamentalist wacko?
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/04/28/hillary-clinton-gives-rare-glimpse-into-her-christian-faith/
We got a rare look, and I do mean rare, at Hillary Clinton's religious beliefs.
She seems to be driven to spread "social justice" in the name of Jesus.
Is this a violation of church and state? Is she a fundamentalist wacko?
No, she is fundamentally an opportunist. This may not appear wacko to those who support her, because they know supporting her is the most efficient way of achieving their own goals. It's wacko for her to try convincing people she believes something she doesn't actually believe, but nevertheless this can work for her. It's a proven strategy... it definitely works, so we can count on seeing more of this behavior until the election. And then after election it will be business as usual.
As an aside, I think Obama did her a favor by getting the nod to run for president instead of her. imo she has a better chance of becoming president this time around, assuming she is chosen to run this time around... "Clinton fatigue" is still a factor.
Remember when a conservative talk show host was encouraging democrats to choose Hillary for the nomination instead of Obama?
01 Jun 15
Originally posted by lemon limeWhat do you make of whodey's suggestion [not only on this thread] that a politician expressing or professing Christian beliefs [or religious beliefs in general], or basing their policy formations on them, is "a violation of the separation of church and state"?
[b]Is she a fundamentalist wacko?
No, she is fundamentally an opportunist. This may not appear wacko to those who support her, because they know supporting her is the most efficient way of achieving their own goals. It's wacko for her to try convincing people she believes something she doesn't actually believe, but nevertheless this can work for her. I ...[text shortened]... talk show host was encouraging democrats to choose Hillary for the nomination instead of Obama?