| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Yongwang
United States196 Posts
On February 15 2012 11:56 Stratos_speAr wrote: Exactly. Republicans are incredibly hypocritical when it comes to the idea of "liberty". Apparently social freedom just isn't a concept they understand, and all they think about is fiscal freedom. That has more to do with religion than anything else. | ||
|
jackdaniels
29 Posts
| ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
And then he's spent the rest of his time talking about himself and how he was a "Detroit boy" (it should be pretty obvious this is false - the city he grew up in is 20 miles from Detroit and is the 4th richest city in America) and very little time speaking about actual Detroiters, Michiganders or what his plans are. When you're scrambling to restore credibility in your home state, instead of focusing on policy or the more typical pandering, you're basically dead in the water. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
Santorum wants to fight the dangers of contraception Seriously. Obvious theocrat. | ||
|
Derez
Netherlands6068 Posts
| ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
| ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
| ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
On February 16 2012 02:00 Djzapz wrote: Well, Santorum certainly is a frightening person. Blows my mind that 21st century people in a civilized country are still at that level. as yongwang said, this has more to do with religion than anything else | ||
|
Yongwang
United States196 Posts
http://www.fox19.com/story/16937227/reality-check-was-there-voter-fraud-in-maine | ||
|
nam nam
Sweden4672 Posts
On February 16 2012 02:04 Roe wrote: as yongwang said, this has more to do with religion than anything else I know plenty of religious people that have sane opinions though. Blaming his opinions of just religion is not really fair. | ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
On February 16 2012 02:33 nam nam wrote: I know plenty of religious people that have sane opinions though. Blaming his opinions of just religion is not really fair. Well, which of his opinions are not based on some kind of religious/christian rooting? | ||
|
Yongwang
United States196 Posts
On February 16 2012 02:33 nam nam wrote: I know plenty of religious people that have sane opinions though. Blaming his opinions of just religion is not really fair. That's like saying some Nazis were good people and so National Socialism is a good thing. Hell the majority of the Nazis were in fact good people. Regardless of some religious people being "good" or "kind-hearted," religion itself is responsible for many, if not the majority, of the problems in this world. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On February 16 2012 02:46 Yongwang wrote: That's like saying some Nazis were good people and so National Socialism is a good thing. Hell the majority of the Nazis were in fact good people. Regardless of some religious people being "good" or "kind-hearted," religion itself is responsible for many, if not the majority, of the problems in this world. As the majority of Americans are religious, this is a bad attitude to take. It's not wise to immediately set yourself against people especially if morally you may be very close. Regardless if religion itself is evil, it contains the majority of good people at the moment. We should be finding common moral ground against fundamentalists rather making enemies of the secularized religious. Personally as an atheist I believe very strongly in freedom of/from religion. It sounds like you are actually condemning that, suggesting that nobody should have religion. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On February 16 2012 02:46 Yongwang wrote: That's like saying some Nazis were good people and so National Socialism is a good thing. Hell the majority of the Nazis were in fact good people. Regardless of some religious people being "good" or "kind-hearted," religion itself is responsible for many, if not the majority, of the problems in this world. Just a little bit bigoted, are we? | ||
|
Sufficiency
Canada23833 Posts
| ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On February 15 2012 11:49 Stratos_speAr wrote: It's hardly "messed up", especially when many here think that Obama is the best choice that we have. Furthermore, that's just how the media works. The men that are more popular originally/have more money are going to get the coverage. If you want a civilized discussion, take your obnoxious levels of bias and tone them down a bit. Err... let's just say that Buddy Roemer lost his last election to a crook and a white supremacist(Edwards and Duke). He wasn't that great of a Louisiana governor far as I know. However, I do think his $100 or less donations is a pretty good thing. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On February 16 2012 02:19 Yongwang wrote: Ron Paul actually won Maine, the election was fixed to show Mittens won, but it's now come out that Ron Paul won the state: http://www.fox19.com/story/16937227/reality-check-was-there-voter-fraud-in-maine That link shows absolutely nothing, and only says the caucus was messy. For all we know, Herman Cain won Maine. | ||
|
Yongwang
United States196 Posts
On February 15 2012 11:49 Stratos_speAr wrote: It's hardly "messed up", especially when many here think that Obama is the best choice that we have. Who thinks that other than black people who vote for him solely because he's black? Republicans and independents hate him because he's a socialist. Democrats hate him because he's pro-war and in bed with the corporations. If that's not enough, religious people hate him because he has been doing everything he can to violate the First Amendment. Obama is extremely unpopular and this time he has to run on his record, which is something he can't do. The real problem is that there are no real conservatives running against him. America needs a leader and as we all know, Obama is anything but a leader, and Romney/Santorum isn't much better. Paul doesn't understand how a government works or anything regarding foreign policy. Gingrich MIGHT be able to be a leader if he stays true to making the moon the 51st state, but he's going to have a hard time getting women and religious people to vote for him with his multiple extramarital affairs. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On February 16 2012 03:25 Yongwang wrote: Who thinks that other than black people who vote for him solely because he's black? Republicans and independents hate him because he's a socialist. Democrats hate him because he's pro-war and in bed with the corporations. If that's not enough, religious people hate him because he has been doing everything he can to violate the First Amendment. Obama is extremely unpopular and this time he has to run on his record, which is something he can't do. The real problem is that there are no real conservatives running against him. America needs a leader and as we all know, Obama is anything but a leader, and Romney/Santorum isn't much better. Paul doesn't understand how a government works or anything regarding foreign policy. Gingrich MIGHT be able to be a leader if he stays true to making the moon the 51st state, but he's going to have a hard time getting women and religious people to vote for him with his multiple extramarital affairs. Oh really? Where is Obama violating the first amendment? What is this bullshit? Paul probably understands more about foreign policy and how the government works more than any of the other candidates including Obama. Seriously, you're using Gingrich as the most model conservative? Really? | ||
|
1Eris1
United States5797 Posts
On February 16 2012 03:25 Yongwang wrote: Who thinks that other than black people who vote for him solely because he's black? Republicans and independents hate him because he's a socialist. Democrats hate him because he's pro-war and in bed with the corporations. If that's not enough, religious people hate him because he has been doing everything he can to violate the First Amendment. Obama is extremely unpopular and this time he has to run on his record, which is something he can't do. The real problem is that there are no real conservatives running against him. America needs a leader and as we all know, Obama is anything but a leader, and Romney/Santorum isn't much better. Paul doesn't understand how a government works or anything regarding foreign policy. Gingrich MIGHT be able to be a leader if he stays true to making the moon the 51st state, but he's going to have a hard time getting women and religious people to vote for him with his multiple extramarital affairs. Oh man. Like I'm not trying to defend Obama here but you are honestly a complete fool. Do you even know what Socialism means? . . . No you don't. So stop using it to describe people. Pro-war? Give the dude some credit, he's gotten us out of one war (albeit slowly), and managed to avoid another one in a pretty nice fashion. It's "lets charge in Iran" Santorum that is pro-war. Haha, violating the 1st amendment. Last I checked stopping Christianity from overstepping their rights isn't going against the 1st amendment...it's up holding it. Gingrich? Wtf is wrong with you. What the hell does building a moon colony have to do with being a leader, besides putting us further into debt? And nice jab at women there, personally I as a man find adultery to be absolutely disgusting, probably more so than most of my female friends (however I do not think it necessarily represents leadership ability) but apparentely according to you it only matters to women. | ||
| ||
|
|
PiGosaur Monday
RSL Revival
Classic vs Creator
Cure vs TriGGeR
Kung Fu Cup
GuMiho vs MaNa
herO vs TBD
Classic vs TBD
CranKy Ducklings
RSL Revival
herO vs Gerald
ByuN vs SHIN
Kung Fu Cup
IPSL
ZZZero vs rasowy
Napoleon vs KameZerg
BSL 21
Tarson vs Julia
Doodle vs OldBoy
eOnzErG vs WolFix
StRyKeR vs Aeternum
Sparkling Tuna Cup
RSL Revival
Reynor vs sOs
Maru vs Ryung
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
