icedancer2theend
Verified User
No. He can use a national security litmus test however- Cain has said that is who he was discussing. Anyone with any kind of radical affiliation. Unlike Obama who does not mind radicals-
We need to nominate, then elect Herman Cain!
- Thread starter Dixie - In Memoriam
- Start date
No. He can use a national security litmus test however- Cain has said that is who he was discussing. Anyone with any kind of radical affiliation. Unlike Obama who does not mind radicals-
Depends on what they are radical about, President Obama does not mind people who are radical about there desire to make America a better nation.
Cain did not say he would not appoint radicals, he said he would not appoint Muslims.
icedancer2theend
Verified User
In the context of the discussion he later clarified himself. Radicals have no place in appointed positions. Let them run for elected positions, on their radical ideas, and see if America wants to embrace them.
Alias
Banned
I agree with Herman Cain. Muslim's allegiance is to Islam first. Would you appoint a Christian who had allegiance to the Old Testament first? Didn't think so.
Alias
Banned
Of course you laugh at me and spit on me, etc, etc, etc. God didn't make a mistake, you have. You have made the choices in your life that determine who you are. God gave you free will with a brain and made his faith available and you chose to follow the world. You're seething inside, but it's not at me, it's self hate for making the wrong choices in your miserable life.
icedancer2theend
Verified User
icedancer2theend
Verified User
This whole idea of God making mistakes is proof that someone does not understand God- of course He made no mistakes. God created Adam and Eve "perfectly". They were the only humans to ever have true free will. In other words they could choose not to sin. When they fell- all mankind fell and sin entered the world. Does this give man the excuse or freedom to sin- no, it means he is a sinner and will sin- God did not utterly destroy man, but instead offered redemption. The objective then is to find relief for sin. Christ is that relief. To die to your sin daily is the prerequisite for doing so- This is no mere easy cross to bear- for all have sinned and fall short- ALL. The picture then is of a battle that goes on daily in the lives of those who seek after God- God equips you for the battle with his Word; Sacraments; and fellowship of the saints. For those who reject God there is no battle, for they are content with their sin. This is what the historical Christian faith teaches-
Like all of us, poet has his struggles- let them be his struggles. Don't get sucked into them.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
I disagree. The president can use a religious test, a race test, a gender test, a Rorschach test.... it doesn't matter! The president can flip a coin, base his selection on who has the nicest shoes, best looking butt, firmest handshake, coolest ride... it does not matter! IT IS THE PRESIDENT'S CHOICE!
You are bringing up Article 6, but it simply does not apply to the process of appointments by the president. Like I said, IF the president appointed someone, and during the Senate confirmations, the Senate rejected them on the basis they were Muslim.... THEN you would have a violation of Article 6.
Last edited:
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Just one? Jesus Christ. I don't even know where to start.
poet
Banned
LOLOL. People don't "turn gay", Neanderthal. And I've never been sexually frustrated. LOL. I've been with several women....all who wanted more. Of me.It looks like we've stumbled upon your real problem Poet. You're sexually frustrated. Obviously you were obsessed with female breasts when you were younger and your sloppy advances were met with refusal. So you turned gay. How sad.
poet
Banned
And the difference between you and others here, is that no one believes that nonsense but you. And my life couldn't be more fabulous, and I thank God for it, everyday. Much to your chagrin.
poet
Banned
Live and let live....at least you're learning.
So you are willing to violate the Constitution?
Seriously? And you pretend to care about the Constitution... "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
What part of "EVER" do you not understand?
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Their is no "religious test" and qualification for a cabinet position, is determined by the president, pursuant to the Constitution. What part of that do you not comprehend? He is not bound to appoint anyone by any other standard than his own personal judgement. I don't know why you are acting like such a retard about this, Jughead. You fake being a lawyer enough to know, if the president were somehow bound by an obligation to make appointments based on not discriminating, he could never make an appointment. This is a decision our Constitution grants the President, and his decision alone. If we don't like his methods, if we don't like how he went about appointing people, we can vote him out of office. But Article 6 simply does not apply to presidential appointments, and the president is certainly not obligated in any way, to observe ANY outside influence, or satisfy political correctness.
Remember now, we are not talking about a situation where various "candidates" are applying for a job... That isn't how presidential appointments are made. It's not like the President is going to have to interview applicants and hire them for the job... the PRESIDENT appoints his cabinet. He decides who is a candidate, and who is not a candidate. He is not bound or obligated to make that decision with consideration for religious beliefs or anything else, he can appoint any damn one he chooses, and for any damn reason he sees fit. End of discussion.
poet
Banned
Who have to be approved and confirmed by Congress. LOL.
Alias
Banned
Then why are you so angry and spewing all the hate and venom? Because you're happy? LOL. Okay.
poet
Banned
I already told you. I don't take no shit off of any racists or bigots. None. I get angry because stupidity and hate piss me off. But after a cocktail, I'm fine.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Right... Which is why I stated the example, that IF the president had appointed a Muslim to a cabinet position, and Congress, during confirmation, rejected the nominee on the basis he was Muslim, that would be a violation of Article 6. But the initial choice can be made by the president using whatever criteria he sees fit, and that's part of the responsibility delegated to the president in the Constitution. You have to literally distort the intent and meaning of Article 6 to get it to fit the way Jughead wants it to apply.
How many times do you think Joe Lieberman may have been passed over for a VP selection, because he is Jewish? How about if Romney fails to win the nomination, and whoever does win, doesn't pick Romney to be the VP because he is Mormon? You know... this stuff happens all the time, in every election, with virtually every "pick" that someone has to make... everything factors in, and there is no way to enforce Jughead's interpretation of Article 6, because who the hell knows why someone picks or doesn't pick a certain person? Only the picker knows for sure, it is their pick, and other than what they might reveal publicly, we can't really know why they pick who they pick. To suggest this has to be adherent to some guideline, is retarded. It's up to the president to pick who he likes, and Congress can confirm or reject them. Period.
