Republican nominations - Page 443

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.

On February 16 2012 03:41 1Eris1 wrote:



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.

On February 16 2012 03:57 aksfjh wrote:

To be fair to the moon colony thing, it is an inspiring goal to return to the moon and install a permanent base there. Though, like all of Gingrich's statements, he talks too much. To further our knowledge of our solar system and ourselves, those should be the objectives of something as grand as a return trip to the moon. Underlying goals would be to inspire another generation of engineers and scientists to fill the gaping hole that's emerging in those fields. Those goals should NOT be to form a state and effectively turn the whole thing into capitalistic and imperialistic conquest.

(Sorry for double post, thought somebody was going to post before I got done with this.)

On February 16 2012 04:03 1Eris1 wrote:


Oh I agree, but can we afford it? Are we ready for it? Personally I'd argue at the moment we are not and it's just Gingrich spouting stuff to try and garner a specific group of voters. (of course all candidates do this but eh)
Hell I'm not even sure he would go through with it even if he was elected. The fact that it's promised by the end of his 2nd term suggests he's not truly invested in it and might very well back out of it.

On February 16 2012 04:06 Yongwang wrote:

We can afford it, we just need to cut spending in other places.

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.

On February 16 2012 04:06 Yongwang wrote:

We can afford it, we just need to cut spending in other places.

On February 16 2012 04:29 Kimaker wrote:

An idea can't be held directly responsible for an action. It's the way the idea is interpreted and how people act on it that determines the outcome. Thus is falls to the people. This is a bullshit argument that seeks to oversimplify the cause of horrific actions conducted IN THE NAME OF religion.

I can go on a rampage and kill 30 people and say I did it for God, that doesn't make religion responsible, it makes me responsible and religion my retroactive justification.

On February 16 2012 04:31 hmunkey wrote:

That's still the antithesis of what the GOP has been spewing for the last 4 years, like much of their actual policy. You cannot stand for small government and at the same time want government expansions for things you like. That's the exact opposite of small government.

It's the same hypocrisy in the Republican's military expansion planes, or the vast majority of their stances on social issues (which of course should be regulated by the government, even though government regulation is evil and socialist!)...

On February 16 2012 04:37 hmunkey wrote:

Yes, but in this hypothetical example you went on the rampage and used God as an excuse. There's a big difference from that and from being brainwashed for years into thinking the rampage is what you must do to enter heaven.

Suicide bombers are not looking for a scapegoat by pretended to be religious their entire lives; that very religion is what shaped their beliefs that suicide bombing is justifiable and necessary.

The same logic applies to many ideologies though, not just those with God involved. Nazism, like you mentioned, suffered from the same problem. People who wouldn't normally do certain things were convinced it was a moral imperative to do so.

Of course I don't think religion in general is evil or has to be evil, but it does lead to quite a bit of human suffering when taken to certain extents. As societies become more secular, religion becomes less and less important (and conforms to secularism), which makes it less of problem. For example, no mainstream western Christian would seriously consider killing homosexuals or their children, or enslaving "lesser" people, or any number of horrific Biblical things. The west is secular and religion has changed to accommodate that. Unfortunately, this is not the case in much of the Middle East and Africa.

On February 16 2012 04:29 Kimaker wrote:

An idea can't be held directly responsible for an action. It's the way the idea is interpreted and how people act on it that determines the outcome. Thus is falls to the people. This is a bullshit argument that seeks to oversimplify the cause of horrific actions conducted IN THE NAME OF religion.

I can go on a rampage and kill 30 people and say I did it for God, that doesn't make religion responsible, it makes me responsible and religion my retroactive justification.

On February 16 2012 04:38 DoubleReed wrote:


Uhm, when you force women to cover themselves up because of the Quran then yes the Quran is responsible. Likewise when people decry the immorality of homosexuality because of lines in the bible then it's the bible's fault. If you teach immoral ideas to children using immoral books, don't tell me I can't blame the ideas or books. Many actions by fundamentalists would not even be considered if scripture wasn't involved.

To claim that all religious + immoral acts are due to post hoc rationalization is rather naive.

On February 16 2012 04:44 Mohdoo wrote:

I think the argument is that since not everyone takes the same thing from the bible, and obviously not everyone who has read the bible is against gay marriage, you can't say the bible always has that impact. Regardless, its pretty easy to blame the bible for the cases where it DOES manage to have such influence.

On February 16 2012 04:44 Mohdoo wrote:

I think the argument is that since not everyone takes the same thing from the bible, and obviously not everyone who has read the bible is against gay marriage, you can't say the bible always has that impact. Regardless, its pretty easy to blame the bible for the cases where it DOES manage to have such influence.

On February 16 2012 04:37 Kimaker wrote:

Wow. A non-American who demonstrates a better understanding of the issues facing a person who favors fiscal conservatism and social liberalism in America than an American. Shocking. xD

I used to be a Republican, then I realized they're just as dumb as the Democrats.




A fair point.
I will respond to that by saying that the Old Testament isn't the Christian Holy Book. At least it's not what forms the core of Christian belief (or shouldn't be considering...well, it has very little to do with what would come to be known as Christianity and what distinguishes it from simply being a proselytizing Judaism) and most people who buy into those ideas are dangerous or dumb to begin with.

I guess what I'm getting at is if it wasn't religion, then it would be something else for those people, in which case I don't blame the ideology, but them. I don't like blaming groups when I can avoid it since that can get messy.

On February 16 2012 04:56 Stratos_speAr wrote:


http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/united-states/120215/obamas-approval-rating-reaches-50-says-poll

Obama's approval rating just got over 50%. Not even close to "extremely unpopular".

On February 16 2012 04:29 Kimaker wrote:

An idea can't be held directly responsible for an action. It's the way the idea is interpreted and how people act on it that determines the outcome. Thus is falls to the people. This is a bullshit argument that seeks to oversimplify the cause of horrific actions conducted IN THE NAME OF religion.

I can go on a rampage and kill 30 people and say I did it for God, that doesn't make religion responsible, it makes me responsible and religion my retroactive justification.

On February 16 2012 04:49 Kimaker wrote:

Bingo. Anything less than this is a gross oversimplification stated to make anti-religious people feel better about their moral "high" ground. Judge people on an individual basis please?

On February 16 2012 04:56 Stratos_speAr wrote:
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/united-states/120215/obamas-approval-rating-reaches-50-says-poll

Obama's approval rating just got over 50%. Not even close to "extremely unpopular".

On February 16 2012 04:31 hmunkey wrote:

That's still the antithesis of what the GOP has been spewing for the last 4 years, like much of their actual policy. You cannot stand for small government and at the same time want government expansions for things you like. That's the exact opposite of small government.

It's the same hypocrisy in the Republican's military expansion planes, or the vast majority of their stances on social issues (which of course should be regulated by the government, even though government regulation is evil and socialist!)...