Democrats can chose the next president.

Quote from bigarrow:

There is a good chance a republican, any republican could beat Obama in the next election. Democrats should decide which republican running would be the most palatable and someone they could work with and some with an above average IQ.
This would help protect the country from the dimwits ala Palin and Jesus fanatics.
Romney might be a good choice for the dems, he's smart and accomplished and doesn't seem like a party line fanatic and being a Morman he sure isn't a Jesus nut. It will require voting in the republican primary though and that might be hard for some to do.

Humm........ This country was founded by Jesus fanatics, might be good to have one back in office.
 
Quote from bigarrow:

There is a good chance a republican, any republican could beat Obama in the next election. Democrats should decide which republican running would be the most palatable and someone they could work with and some with an above average IQ.
This would help protect the country from the dimwits ala Palin and Jesus fanatics.
Romney might be a good choice for the dems, he's smart and accomplished and doesn't seem like a party line fanatic and being a Morman he sure isn't a Jesus nut. It will require voting in the republican primary though and that might be hard for some to do.

IMO, your comment is flawed to absurdity, simply because you're attempting to apply human terms to the motives and behaviors of politicians. Here's a more appropriate analogy to show you where you're going wrong:

A pack of jackals slays a lone, defenseless antelope and begins to feast. Unfortunately for them, a bigger and stronger pack of hyenas now comes along to chase off the jackals and lay claim to the spoils. The notion of these two rival predator packs sharing the carcass between them so that everyone gets a meal would be a complete non-starter, of course, as it is not in the nature of predator animals to behave in such ways. The badly outnumbered jackals are in a position of weakness and are forced to retreat (at least temporarily), surrendering all of this perfectly good fresh meat to their rivals, the hyenas.

Now, do you really think any of the retreating jackals actually gives two shits <i>which individual hyena</i> ends up getting first dibs on their lost prize? Could any of the jackals care less for the well-being or 'best interests' of the carcass? If they could ensure that the meat winds up in the hands of a relatively 'friendly' or 'ideologically similar' individual hyena, would they even care?

Think about it...
 
Quote from Wallet:

Humm........ This country was founded by Jesus fanatics, might be good to have one back in office.

Many of our founders, Washington, Jefferson and Franklin to name a few would be atheist today. They were smart reasonable men who would take the scientific evidence and the total lack of evidence for Jesus and thus wouldn't be modern day Jesus fanatics. You do realize that politicians who don't believe in Jesus will say they do to keep their jobs don't you and many businessmen pretend to believe in your pretend god because it's good for business.
 
On second thought, if your sole meaning was that Democratic <b>voters</b> (not Democratic politicians) could have a say in which Republican will succeed Obama... well, then never mind my clever little analogy above, because in that case I guess you kind of have a point. :p
 
Quote from bigarrow:

Many of our founders, Washington, Jefferson and Franklin to name a few would be atheist today.

That's what revisionists would like everyone to believe, actually they would say they were back then but it's far from the truth... but that's the topic of another thread that has been thrown around over and over again.
 
Many scientist, professors, intellectuals and businessmen are atheist today.
Some from the past would be atheist in today's world. My list was a probable list.
If not those men there would definatly be others who would look at the knowledge we have now and would be atheist.
 
Back
Top