Cain this all be true?

Superfreak said:
yes moron, we get it... you found Article Six and are harping on it to death. We get it, you think you struck gold. Tell us then genius, why is it that politicians use abortion as a litmus test. That too is a religious belief (though it is also a scientific fact)
Click to expand...

Abortion is not a religous belife, what are you an idiot? What religous tenate even mentions the word Abortion?
 
Onceler said:
Maybe we should encourage women to keep having babies, as many as possible, just in case one can produce the next Einstein or King?
Click to expand...

I think we should kill them randomly, albeit with purpose, just in case one might be poor and unwanted. <- for the sardonically challenged, I do not really think this.
 
Jarod said:
He is trying to avoid the subject by talking about other stuff.
Click to expand...

Right, participating in the conversation is avoiding it, war is peace, love is hate...

Do you think repeating the same question in different threads at different times makes you appear deep or do you believe you have a need to play to "the audience" and pretend that previous conversations containing the same question answered zillions of times never happened?
 
Superfreak said:
Tell us... if someone believes Sharia Law should be the law of the land.... should they be put in a position where typically they have to swear to uphold the Constitution?
Click to expand...

If they want to be a Judge they must agree to uphold THE LAW, not what they belive it should be, plenty of judges uphold laws that they disagree with, if however they want to change the law to Sharia and the President does not, then they should not be appointed to a position that allows them to influence the law not if they are Christian, Muslim, Jewish or Peakinease. My point however, is that not all Muslims want Sharia Law to be the law of the land. Cain did not say that those Muslims who want to make Sharia law the law of the land are unacceptable, he said, Muslims are unacceptable. The difference is signifigant.

How do you feel about evangelical Christians who want to make there version of biblical law the "law of the land"?
 
Damocles said:
Right, participating in the conversation is avoiding it, war is peace, love is hate...

Do you think repeating the same question in different threads at different times makes you appear deep or do you believe you have a need to play to "the audience" and pretend that previous conversations containing the same question answered zillions of times never happened?
Click to expand...

1) You are not participating in "the conversation", you are creating an offshoot that allows you to avoid the topic at hand and discuss something else, next you will start talking about how I spelled Muslim or Christianity. That is avoiding the subject.

2) I do not belive that repeating the same question makes me appear deep or that I am playing to an audience, I do belive it points out the extend many will go to avoid admiting they were wrong or that there canidate has gone too far.
 
Jarod said:
If they want to be a Judge they must agree to uphold THE LAW, not what they belive it should be, plenty of judges uphold laws that they disagree with, if however they want to change the law to Sharia and the President does not, then they should not be appointed to a position that allows them to influence the law not if they are Christian, Muslim, Jewish or Peakinease. My point however, is that not all Muslims want Sharia Law to be the law of the land. Cain did not say that those Muslims who want to make Sharia law the law of the land are unacceptable, he said, Muslims are unacceptable. The difference is signifigant.

How do you feel about evangelical Christians who want to make there version of biblical law the "law of the land"?
Click to expand...

Pretending Cain didn't clarify his comments regarding Muslims doesn't mean he didn't do just that. He stated that it was those that wanted Sharia Law that he would not appoint. Either pay attention or by all means, start a few more threads on this nonsense. It reeks of desperation. Much like the continued efforts of the left to pretend a word on a rock (that was painted over) on land that Perry's family leases somehow makes Perry a racist.
 
Superfreak said:
Apparently Jarod is going to bring it up another 6392 times.... just a ball park guess.
Click to expand...

Cool. I'll play the part of Jarod...

Well, let me just say, Article six, man. <Insert Bush quote here>, and then I'll ask a simple question repeating something about Article six...

After that I'll go to another thread, maybe even start one, with that simple question. I'll repeat it because I think it is "awesome", and I'll ignore any previous answer I have ever heard over the decade or more we have known each other. I'll then pretend that I've never said that somebody shouldn't be elected because they might "push" Christianity on me and repeat something about Article six...

After somebody clarifies, I'll say that they are only "backtracking" and pretend that only the one statement can ever be considered, especially if it is something about their religion...

Now that I have a plan, can you see any holes in it?
 
Damocles said:
Cool. I'll play the part of Jarod...

Well, let me just say, Article six, man. <Insert Bush quote here>, and then I'll ask a simple question repeating something about Article six...

After that I'll go to another thread, maybe even start one, with that simple question. I'll repeat it because I think it is "awesome", and I'll ignore any previous answer I have ever heard over the decade or more we have known each other. I'll then pretend that I've never said that somebody shouldn't be elected because they might "push" Christianity on me and repeat something about Article six...

After somebody clarifies, I'll say that they are only "backtracking" and pretend that only the one statement can ever be considered, especially if it is something about their religion...

Now that I have a plan, can you see any holes in it?
Click to expand...

Nope... that plan is as solid as Jarod's spelling.
 
Superfreak said:
Tell us... if someone believes Sharia Law should be the law of the land.... should they be put in a position where typically they have to swear to uphold the Constitution?[/

There are Christians in office currently that believe people like myself will go to hell. There are three branches of government in place to keep us protected from radical beliefs. It has been stated in other threads that the President does not make the laws. There are different sects who practice varying degrees of Sharia law. I have faith in the system and in the strength of the woman in the USA that it will never be the law of the land. If at some point it does become the law, then it is what the majority of the people want.

SF it. Is my wish that all candidates were agnostic, secular humanist, but that isn't going to happen, and when a super Christian gets elected, it is my job as a citizen who isn't religious to be on guard for the passing of laws that would take away my freedoms because of their religious beliefs, like what kind of books I may read, what kind of music I may listen to, and what I can do with my own body.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top