Comparing where the candidates stand on religion.

[Napoléon]

I disagree...

NO...

REALLYYYYY!!!??? hock:

[cratehorus]

NO...

REALLYYYYY!!!??? hock:

lol...

[Polaris]

Obama flip flops on issues of religion and traditional values (only going liberal when he is in dire need of votes) to the point I don't believe a word that comes out of his mouth on the subject. Romney believes, but he also believes in the power of money, so meh to both on this issue.

I used to care about religion in politics, but it is such a low issue compared to the poor state of the economy under Obama.

[Whateverist]

Well you just keep faith with what you believe then. Blowhard man says there is no appreciable differences between the candidates in terms of their approach to religion.

I'll clarify one more time so you might get it.

What he said about either candidate with regards to their religious stance is irrelevant to the actual point he was making.

In actuality the presidential candidate can be whatever they wish, so long as the label themself a christian.

THE POINT:

American presidential candidates must call themselves christian. Otherwise there is more chance of a pig flying than them winning.


What you're saying with regards to who is or is not more christian, or the differences between them is not in any way diminishing Penn's overall point.

Sure, he may be wrong, there may be applicable differences, but what he was saying was that they don't bloody matter. So long as they call themselves christian.

In effect he has the exact same mindset as you when you say you would rather have a christian who is good at the job than an atheist who is awful. Why? Oh that's right, because he made the point that the label they choose to give themselves is actually completely irrelevant to getting the job done.


You get it now? Is it really that hard to understand? I put all the important bits in bold so you might more easily identify them.

No, I guess I haven't make it clear enough that I see that point and agree with him as far as that goes. Yes, I agree, that is the main point he seems to want to make. My objection is to something else I see him doing (which I've already identified), which I see as motivated and dishonest.

For someone who purports to put a lot of stock in rationality he sure isn't above persuasion based on bluster and rhetoric. He isn't really much of an intellectual.

---

I used to care about religion in politics, but it is such a low issue compared to the poor state of the economy under Obama.

What in the world will it take for you to give up on the trickle down stuff? Kissing the asses of job creators and giving them all of the economic incentives has never accomplished anything except to increase economic disparity and threaten the middle class and the market that exists only so long as they do. It trashed the economy under Bush and we are still in recovery from that. Romney hasn't offered any reason to think he'll do anything other than return to the ruinous ways of Bush. Just because Obama hasn't fixed it faster is no reason to put the team that broke it back in.

[Something completely different]

i find this entire way of going through a campain absurd.
to the avrage central european like me the american election is like a ,Amerca`s got "political" talent, show.
to me the american public seems to rather elect someone with a big breast size rather than someone with the better arguments.

[Darth]

i find this entire way of going through a campain absurd.
to the avrage central european like me the american election is like a ,Amerca`s got "political" talent, show.
to me the american public seems to rather elect someone with a big breast size rather than someone with the better arguments.

Chris Christie '12?

[Something completely different]

Chris Christie '12?

well if you like manboobs

[Napoléon]

No, I guess I haven't make it clear enough that I see that point and agree with him as far as that goes.

No you really haven't. Up until now that's the first time I recall you saying you agree with him on any level.

Yes, I agree, that is the main point he seems to want to make.

Changed your tune a bit.

My objection is to something else I see him doing (which I've already identified), which I see as motivated and dishonest.

And as I've already pointed out, numerous times now, it doesn't make a blind bit of difference to the point which I and apparently you now agree is his main one.

For someone who purports to put a lot of stock in rationality he sure isn't above persuasion based on bluster and rhetoric. He isn't really much of an intellectual.

Are many political commentators what you consider intellectuals?

You really do have it in for this man don't you?

[Whateverist]

My objection is to something else I see him doing (which I've already identified), which I see as motivated and dishonest.

And as I've already pointed out, numerous times now, it doesn't make a blind bit of difference to the point which I and apparently you now agree is his main one.

And as I've now conceded that it makes no difference to his main point I have to wonder why you say it again. Do you think if one agrees with someone's main point they should never take exception to anything else they say? If that is your main point, I don't agree.

You really do have it in for this man don't you?

What I don't like about him is that he speaks with the absolute conviction of a fundamentalist. He has a stunted conception of what a human being is and how we do or should reason. His stance toward agnosticism is telling.

[CapnAwesome]

I don't know whether or not Obama is really religious, I suspect that he just went to that crazy ass church of his because it was originally his wife's church. You know what I can't stand though, is when Obama refers to Atheists and Agnostics as 'people of no faith.' Jesus on a stick, is his hair going to catch on fire if he says the word Atheist?

I also can't stand the Atheists who give him so much credit just for (kinda) mentioning us. I don't care about my existence being acknowledged. I knew that I existed before Obama (kinda) mentioned me. What I want him to do is repeal all the 'faith based' programs that essentially result in us dumping millions of dollars into the churches. But what does he do? He dumps MORE money into them, almost twice as much and George Bush. That is the religious issue that should really matter, the government stealing our money and giving it to Churches. Where Atheists did endless bashing on George Bush for this, there is a deafening silence when it comes to Obama.

Sources:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_offi...rtnerships
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/...h-program/