Cain this all be true?

[Jarod]

As I said, the source of the policy is the religion. If I were not an anti-abortion superchristian it wouldn't matter, if you aren't a Sharia Law proponent it doesn't matter... Just as it is in Cain's example.

His clarification made it obvious you two are saying essentially the same thing. I'm glad you find agreement with Cain on how this should be applied.

I dont care where the source of hte policy is, that is not relevant. There are Christians who are Pro-Choice, they are still Christians. In fact there are entire churches that are pro-choice. There are also Muslims who do not belive in death to America. In fact there are entire branches of Islam that are not anti-American.

 

[Phantasmal]

As I said, the source of the policy is the religion. If I were not an anti-abortion superchristian it wouldn't matter, if you aren't a Muslim Sharia Law proponent it doesn't matter... Muslim, okay, Muslim Sharia Law proponent = not okay... Just as it is in Cain's example. Yours: Christian, okay, anti abortion Christian = not okay...

His clarification made it obvious you two are saying essentially the same thing. I'm glad you find agreement with Cain on how this should be applied.

I generally chose people who share my same values, I think most, but not all people do. There was Aleution one time where I did choose someone who thought differently then myself because it increased the creative flow by the diverse opinions. It was a very interesting time in my life.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

In answer to your question, on the surface, my answer is "no". But I don't see how that relates to the topic. And I believe the decision as to what to do with the contents of a woman's body, rests with no one other than the woman in question. But for eons, men have viewed women as "property", so the Neanderthalic view is rather standard. I'm a feminist, and believe otherwise.

But then, you're also a biatch.

 

[zappasguitar]

Maybe he just wants an answer to his question and figures you didn't see it.

Maybe he just wants an answer and figures if Damo is going tocontinue to play the condescending douchebag, then he can ask the question a couple dozen more times for full effect.

 

[Damocles]

Its not Unconstitutional. Lets see what the S.Ct. says.

That we will. My guess is that a Federal mandate forcing you individually to purchase something will be unconstitutional. It was the same problem I had with the same program when the Heritage Foundation promoted and later dropped it (for that very reason).

 

[Phantasmal]

Christie, six Hail Marys and an Our Father for not Capitalizing Reagan's name. Sacrilege, woman, sacrilege.

 

[Damocles]

I dont care where the source of hte policy is, that is not relevant. There are Christians who are Pro-Choice, they are still Christians. In fact there are entire churches that are pro-choice. There are also Muslims who do not belive in death to America. In fact there are entire branches of Islam that are not anti-American.

Yet it is exactly the same thing. You just pretend that the source doesn't exist. It doesn't matter why you believe that Sharia Law should supercede the constitution, it just matters that you think that.

Again, you two are saying the same thing, you just add: "Not that it matters that you are a superchristian anti-abortionist"...

I don't care why you think Sharia Law should override the constitution, I won't appoint you to any position if you do.

 

[Jarod]

That we will. My guess is that a Federal mandate forcing you individually to purchase something will be unconstitutional. It was the same problem I had with the same program when the Heritage Foundation promoted and later dropped it (for that very reason).

The way I belvie that they get around that Constitutionally is that its not really a mandate forcing you to do anything. I know the right has been calling it that forever so its easy to simply belive it, but thats not what it is. You will pay higher taxes if you dont do it, but you are not forced to do it.

 

[Jarod]

Yet it is exactly the same thing. You just pretend that the source doesn't exist. It doesn't matter why you believe that Sharia Law should supercede the constitution, it just matters that you think that.

Again, you two are saying the same thing, you just add: "Not that it matters that you are a superchristian anti-abortionist"...

I don't care why you think Sharia Law should override the constitution, I won't appoint you to any position if you do.

Exactly, but that is not what Cain said. Its also not what Dixie said and its not what Supercandy was defending.

 

[brazenhussy]

That we will. My guess is that a Federal mandate forcing you individually to purchase something will be unconstitutional. It was the same problem I had with the same program when the Heritage Foundation promoted and later dropped it (for that very reason).

I read this book, Confidence Men (Suskind) and he reports that Obama had concerns about the mandate and the supreme court from the start. I don't understand how that can be since the state already forces you to buy auto insurance. But, I am an Medicare-for-all advocate and really don't have a dog in that hunt.

What interests me is that I believe pretty much everyone in the village knows that Romney is the pick. And today something leaked, some memos or something, purporting to show that Obama based his health care bill on Romneycare in MA. Which has appeared to be the case all along (also, his bill was brought up by Republicans like Bob Dole in 93 as the Republican alternative to Clinton health care reform, which shows more than all of the whining, pissing, lying, twisting, turning, and tap dancing how far to the right BOTH parties have moved since).

And that's going to be how Obama protects himself on HCR in the general election.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Please, show us where we said it should keep her from running for office?

It may influence my vote, but it should not disqualify her from office, that is the difference, do you understand the distinction?

People belief in Sharia should not keep them from being a candidate for office, but it may be a deciding factor in voting for them, just like abortion, just like gay marriage, just like being liberal or onsrvayive.

I never once EVER said that anyones political affiliation should bar them from public office. You are a LIAR until you can show me differently.

Who said anything about "BARING" someone from public office? Cain didn't say that, I don't see anyone here saying that. The President has the authority to appoint who he wants to appoint, and he can determine this by any means he sees fit, including what kind of religious beliefs someone may have, or how the general public might feel about someone with those religious beliefs.... that is the president's prerogative, it's up to him.... you don't get a vote. He can even make an appointment on the basis on skin color or gender, many supreme court justices have been appointed on just that very basis. None of this has any damn thing to do with running for office, or officially baring a group from government jobs... that's what you are trying to MAKE IT INTO and it's not.

People who believe in Sharia, believe in something the opposite of what we believe in Western culture. Civil Liberty does not exist in Sharia. It contradicts the principles and constructs of our US Constitution and American rules of law. It is impossible to believe in Sharia and also believe in the Constitution. Should they be allowed to run for office? SURE... I have NO complaints... just as someone who is a devout racist, skinhead, anarchist, communist, or jew-hater... CAN run! That's fine, that's our political process and freedom at work... that isn't what we are discussing here. We are talking specifically about cabinet appointments made at the discretion of one man, the man responsible for such appointments, the duly elected president. Should the fact that someone believes religiously, that women deserve to be stoned to death if they allow themselves to be raped, and that gay people should be executed.... be APPOINTED to a CABINET position, by the president? That is what is up for discussion, and you two seem to think it shouldn't disqualify someone....glad we have you on record with that, in case you ever run for president.

 

[Damocles]

And here's irony for you. I've heard many, many conservatives say they like reagan because he made them FEEL good about themselves. Not how he made them THINK well of themselves. So it appears the "feelings" thing depends on whether a liberal or conservative uses the term.

Yeah, I don't like it when "conservatives" do it either. I spoke about it earlier when I mentioned the dogmatic partisans... I'll note that you seem to "miss" that part of my posts.

Either the policy is the best way to get things done, or it isn't. I do think that speeches about Malaise are stupid though when so many do go by "feelings"... it would be illogical to try to win office by saying your policy failed and we're no better off than we were before you started.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Bitch, you can "wax philosophical", until cows come home...it wouldn't make a hill of beans. You're entitled to your beliefs, as I am. Don't want abortion. Don't get one. But I'll be goddamn if you try to prevent a woman who wants one from having one, and I'm anywhere near.

Science, like truth, doesn't need for you to say what it is. We've all seen how the Bush administration fudged the scientific data on global warming to its' own agenda. Science can be "hijacked" or "co-opted", like anything else. Roe V. Wade is the law of the land. Circumvent it if you dare. Like someone tried to lay a guilt trip on me earlier, by saying "this is a land of laws"...must have been bullshit, because your kind doesn't respect what the people demanded. As much as you can find science to support your view, I can find science to dispute it. I reject your view. My prerogative.

"But I'll be goddamn if you try to prevent a woman who wants one from having one, and I'm anywhere near."

And now Poet becomes yet another Keyboard Commando.

You better look out Dixie, or Poet will hit you with his purse; er:..............European satchel.

 

[Jarod]

I read this book, Confidence Men (Suskind) and he reports that Obama had concerns about the mandate and the supreme court from the start. I don't understand how that can be since the state already forces you to buy auto insurance. But, I am an Medicare-for-all advocate and really don't have a dog in that hunt.

What interests me is that I believe pretty much everyone in the village knows that Romney is the pick. And today something leaked, some memos or something, purporting to show that Obama based his health care bill on Romneycare in MA. Which has appeared to be the case all along (also, his bill was brought up by Republicans like Bob Dole in 93 as the Republican alternative to Clinton health care reform, which shows more than all of the whining, pissing, lying, twisting, turning, and tap dancing how far to the right BOTH parties have moved since).

And that's going to be how Obama protects himself on HCR in the general election.

With Romney in the race it becomes a non-issue.

 

[Damocles]

I read this book, Confidence Men (Suskind) and he reports that Obama had concerns about the mandate and the supreme court from the start. I don't understand how that can be since the state already forces you to buy auto insurance. But, I am an Medicare-for-all advocate and really don't have a dog in that hunt.

What interests me is that I believe pretty much everyone in the village knows that Romney is the pick. And today something leaked, some memos or something, purporting to show that Obama based his health care bill on Romneycare in MA. Which has appeared to be the case all along (also, his bill was brought up by Republicans like Bob Dole in 93 as the Republican alternative to Clinton health care reform, which shows more than all of the whining, pissing, lying, twisting, turning, and tap dancing how far to the right BOTH parties have moved since).

And that's going to be how Obama protects himself on HCR in the general election.

States are different than the Federal government and have different powers, however states do not force you to purchase a car and you are therefore not required to purchase auto insurance or even licensing. These two things are not equivalent.

I believe that Obama's request that they make a quick decision on this is so that the law will not be hanging over his head during the election.

 

[Jarod]

Who said anything about "BARING" someone from public office? Cain didn't say that, I don't see anyone here saying that. The President has the authority to appoint who he wants to appoint, and he can determine this by any means he sees fit, including what kind of religious beliefs someone may have, or how the general public might feel about someone with those religious beliefs.... that is the president's prerogative, it's up to him.... you don't get a vote. He can even make an appointment on the basis on skin color or gender, many supreme court justices have been appointed on just that very basis. None of this has any damn thing to do with running for office, or officially baring a group from government jobs... that's what you are trying to MAKE IT INTO and it's not.

People who believe in Sharia, believe in something the opposite of what we believe in Western culture. Civil Liberty does not exist in Sharia. It contradicts the principles and constructs of our US Constitution and American rules of law. It is impossible to believe in Sharia and also believe in the Constitution. Should they be allowed to run for office? SURE... I have NO complaints... just as someone who is a devout racist, skinhead, anarchist, communist, or jew-hater... CAN run! That's fine, that's our political process and freedom at work... that isn't what we are discussing here. We are talking specifically about cabinet appointments made at the discretion of one man, the man responsible for such appointments, the duly elected president. Should the fact that someone believes religiously, that women deserve to be stoned to death if they allow themselves to be raped, and that gay people should be executed.... be APPOINTED to a CABINET position, by the president? That is what is up for discussion, and you two seem to think it shouldn't disqualify someone....glad we have you on record with that, in case you ever run for president.

Please read Article 6 again, the president does not have the right to use a religous test to see if someone is elegable for a position in government.

BTW, have you found the link to where I said Christanity should bar people from public office?

 

[zappasguitar]

He made the first comment and said he stood by it.
Listen to what he later very reluctantly said, where he backed off slightly when pressed.
Regardless, if you belive he honestly backed off his statements and truely belives differently than what he origionally said, then fundamentally we agree regarding the issue. Not appointing someone because he/she is a member of a specific religen is wrong, not appointing someone because they cant seperate the two or because they disagree with you on a specific issue is okay.

EXACTLY!

The only reason Cain "clarified" his original statement was because within hours he had ALREADY begun taking heat for his extremist vies from pundits and opponents.

 

[Phantasmal]

Wow.... I could take the above to a completely inappropriate place right now. But I shall endeavor to be a gentleman.... just this once.

I totally see what you mean, and can only imagine the zinger!

 

[brazenhussy]

States are different than the Federal government and have different powers, however states do not force you to purchase a car and you are therefore not required to purchase auto insurance or even licensing.

So states have more power than the federal government? Nah, but possibly your second "pulled-it-out-of-your-butt" excuse, though slight, could be something.

Though as someone else pointed out, as long as you pay the fine, you're not forced. We'll see. Obama actually is a Constitutional scholar unlike all of the R's here who read an article at Townhall and now play one on the internets! and he reportedly was concerned, at one point. I do not know if those concerns were allayed in legal opinions he received.

Either way, Romney is on the hook too. Even though I hate this health care plan, and know that only single payer can solve our varied health care problems, I have to admit, it will give me pleasure to watch you righties singing and dancing the soon-to-be brand new classic:

"IT was Different When Romney Did It!"

Oh, it surely will.

 

[Damocles]

With Romney in the race it becomes a non-issue.

It depends on how the SCOTUS rules on the law. If it is unconstitutional for the federal authority to require you to purchase something, it is very much an issue. States are allowed things that the feds are not... It will surely underline a need for something exceptional, and a way to find out the best solution. I would run on 50 states allowing us to find the best and most effective program...