Hillary Clinton "1984"

Quote from Mvic:

What? You believe in an omnipotent omnipresent being who actually gives a rat's arse about us specks of dust in this seemingly infinite universe and its a stretch for you to buy my completely logical argument, just kidding :)

I see, so now you presume to know what I believe in. You have never asked me what I believe in nor have I ever stated my religious beliefs on this forum. I love how you rush to judgement on things you know nothing about.

All my family and most of my friends are religious and I was myself for most of my life, devoutly so, so I really have no problem at all with religious people in private life.

Now this I love. You know, after Mel Gibson's tirade against the Jews he stated he has many Jewish friends and he loves the Jewish people. After Michael Richard's outburst on blacks, he came out and talked about all the black friends he has and how he loves black people.

So now you use the same defense. You attack religion and then state how all your family is religious. Are you seriously not seeing this? Your behavior pattern is no different then Gibson's or Richard's. Of course you will be the first to jump all over them and their excuses but not your own.

What I find objectionable is religion in public life mostly because religion seems to find so many things intolerant. Religious people in power in many cases try to translate their irrational religious beliefs in to the basis for law and policy.

So you respond to intolerance with your own intolerance? An eye for an eye eh? Seriously, look in the mirror. I'm not disagreeing with you. There are plenty of religious people in the world that use their religion to cast hate and intolerance. I just don't understand your response by responding with your own hate and intolerance.

It really is no different than if some cult member (take your pick) got in to the oval office and started using his cult's belief system as a basis for policy. If you were another cult member you might well cheer, but if you thought the cult's belief system was irrational you might have a problem with it too, especially if in the past the cult's beliefs had resulted in a great deal of harm and devastation when mixed with political power.

So now you are resorting to using an extreme example of a cult to get your point across. Come on man. Just because someone believes in God, Buddha, or Mohammed does not mean they are a member of a cult or exhibit cultish behavior.

Anyway I should apologize for the derisive comments made in the past few posts, a sophomoric reaction to your attack on me with the bigot stuff. I really didn't mean to attack you or religious people and certainly don't support any government sanctioned intolerance based on a person's religion. As there is no evidence that I can see for the existence of god, though plenty of evidence that would suggest otherwise, I think that humanity is better served by a POTUS that is free from that particular fantasy than one who isn't. Put yourself in the position of a non believer (which should be the default position in the same way gravity is accepted as the default theory) who sees the whole religious belief system as a fantasy, wouldn't you too rather a POTUS not afflicted by this fantasy than one who was?

I did not attack you. I called you a bigot.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
big·ot /ˈbɪgət/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[bigot] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun

a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

Is this not true of you?

Look, my problem with you is not religion. It's your intolerant beliefs. I love how liberals pride themselves on being tolerant and progressive. Yes, they are only tolerant of their own ideas, not the ideas of others!!! This is on the right and the left. Both sides are intolerant of each other's ideas, religions, skin color, sexual preference, whatever. You condemn intolerance in one area, yet promote it in another. You are blind if you don't see this.






[/B]
More...
 
Looks like the REAL mav is back in action once again talking "Politics and Religion".

What happened?

Did Baron remove his 3 year probation on Mav from posting on anything Political?

As I recall, did he not use to "live" in the Chit Chat Forum supporting/defending George Bush tooth and nail?
:D
 
Quote from Landis82:

Looks like the REAL mav is back in action once again talking "Politics and Religion".

What happened?

Did Baron remove his 3 year probation on Mav from posting on anything Political?

As I recall, did he not use to "live" in the Chit Chat Forum supporting/defending George Bush tooth and nail?
:D
More...

Waggie, weren't you banned from ET? Just can't stay away can you?

No, this thread attracted me because there was some intelligent dialogue on here, very rare for the political forums. Why don't you post a pic of your view from Berkeley for us. We haven't seen one of those in a long time.
 
Quote from Maverick74:

More...

Suggest you take your own advice about not jumping to conclusions about someone's beliefs and political views. Suggest also that you look up the definition of intolerant.
 
Quote from fhl:

I always get a laugh out of the folks who

1 don't know how we got here
2 don't know why we're here
3 don't know what our purpose is for being here
4 don't know what happens when we die

tell us "religious" folk that we have no logic. Actually, the biblical account provides logic to all of the above questions. And, it fits like a well oiled glove.
More...

1. You're not really here
2. Because you don't know who you are.
3. No purpose to not knowing. There is only purpose in undoing purposelessness.
4. Same ole same ole. The only thing that remains the same is change. Yet what can change is not real. So nothing really happens.

Jesus
 
Great Post, I'll like to give my opinion.
I came to america from a very socialist country in europe.
And I wish from the bottom of my heart that the american people will never allow a socialist system in this great country.

My question is, can the democrat's really win the white house with the senate and congress under their belt??

If they do, tha's will mean

Yes to abortion
Yes to high taxes
Yes to gay marriage
Yes to gay adoption
Yes to Protectionism
Yes to more war (the Dem's have a long records on wars)
Yes to socialist health system
Yes to more debt

Do you guys really think that a conservaty society like this will allow that in 2008??

I think that Romney or Thompson will be the 44 president of the United State, or a least That's what I Hope.

PD: sorry for my english.
 
Quote from itotrader:

Great Post, I'll like to give my opinion...
More...
I agree with you, itotrader, more or less. But, now that you have expressed your opinion, it's time to duck (I'm sure you learned how to do that back in the socialist world, right?) because now the liberals (yes, there are some such misguided souls even here on ET) are probably coming to get you :) :) :)
 
And I wish from the bottom of my heart that the american people will never allow a socialist system in this great country.
I said it before, I think, if commies truly get this country the game is over. George Orwell's scenario will become reality.
 
Quote from inflector:

Obama is running as a Democrat, having done drugs might cause him problems in the Republican primary but he's not in that race. The Democrats don't care if he did drugs 20 years ago when he was in High School and College. I was three years behind him so I know the era and practically everyone I knew smoked pot at least occasionally. Certainly anyone with any sort of spirit or independence at least tried them.

The voters that care are about this sort of thing are in the far right. Obama won't need them to win the primary or the election.

Romney on the other hand is a Mormon. I know quite a bit about the Christian right. Mormonism for them is a sect almost as bad as satan worship. They do not consider Mormons to be Christian. Evangelical Christians are NOT going to support a Mormon for president. It won't happen. That will make it very hard for Romney in the primary.

I personally believe that Guiliani, Romney, or Thompson would all make pretty good presidents. A hell of a lot better than any of the the candidates we've had in the last two elections.

I just don't think they'll be able to amass the kind of support that Obama will.

Hillary, different story. She scares me. She's already proven she can't mobilize around an issue like Healthcare. The fact is that when she was given the responsibility she failed. The Republicans would have done a deal and she could not pull it together. She is not Bill, she is much much worse.

Give it another two or three months and Hillary is toast. Already people are starting to wonder how the hell Obama raised $25 million against Hillary's $26 million without the Clinton contacts and from twice as many donors as Hillary. TWICE as many. That is the most important thing to consider. Twice as many people willing to donate money means twice as many advocates. Twice as many grassroots workers. Twice as many people telling their friends. Twice as many people like me blogging about the guy.

Why? Because we like what we see and read and I've already spent more time investigating him that I normally do on any one candidate by the time of the primary. Why? Because I keep looking for a reason why he won't be electable or wouldn't make a great president and I can't find one. And his books are actually good books.

- Curtis
More...
===============
Mr Romney has several other big problems;
CBN[Christian broadcasting Network] caught him making at best misleading statements about hunting, in a shallow attempt to get NRA approval [National Rifle Association]

Reasons like that caused mr Cohen who is a somewhat left leaning writer for IBD[Investors Business Daily] to write if Romney were a coin, he would be rejejected as counterfeit:cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top