We need to nominate, then elect Herman Cain!

DamnYankee said:
Like I said, stick to the irreverent alcoholic comments, and leave the politics to the big boys. :)
Click to expand...

Your intellect is way superior to mine, SM.

I stand in awe of your 'gay people choose to be gay because they can't get enough sex off of women' argument. Moreover, your 'solitary is a liar' tome was a tour de force.

In many ways you're my hero.
 
Congress could reject that person because he belives that Sharia law supersedes the Constitution, but not because the person was a Muslim.
Click to expand...

Well now wait a minute. His religious beliefs that Sharia law supersedes the Constitution, comes from his religion, how do you separate the two? Are you saying it's okay to be a Muslim, but you can't follow the religious teachings of the religion, if you want to serve? And it's not a violation of Article 6 to deny a public office to someone on the basis of their religious beliefs? Sounds like what you are saying now, but just a minute ago, you said this was unconstitutional... Oh, I get it... If Obama did it, it wouldn't be... only if Cain did it, right?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
how does that differ from saying "I will nominate no Muslim who believes in the implementation of Sharia law"?......
Click to expand...

First of all, Thats not what Cain said.

Second, the statement you quoted about Kennedy does not have anything to do with his religen, I dont believe your quote would describe unconstitutional action because it qualified the statement my limiting it to Muslims who belived in the implementation of Sharia Law. My my question would then be, why limit it to only Muslims, why not say, "I will nominate no person who belives in the implementation of Sharia Law."
 
charver said:
Your intellect is way superior to mine, SM.

I stand in awe of your 'gay people choose to be gay because they can't get enough sex off of women' argument. Moreover, your 'solitary is a liar' tome was a tour de force.

In many ways you're my hero.
Click to expand...

That's awesome Charver. Thanks. Just don't take it too far and start jizzing all over my latest avatar. :)
 
Dixie said:
Well now wait a minute. His religious beliefs that Sharia law supersedes the Constitution, comes from his religion, how do you separate the two? Are you saying it's okay to be a Muslim, but you can't follow the religious teachings of the religion, if you want to serve? And it's not a violation of Article 6 to deny a public office to someone on the basis of their religious beliefs? Sounds like what you are saying now, but just a minute ago, you said this was unconstitutional... Oh, I get it... If (note for Damo, Dixie did not say "President" here) [sic] Obama did it, it wouldn't be... only if Cain did it, right?
Click to expand...

Stupid, no, being a member of a specific religen cannot disqualify a person, having a belife that is inconsistant with the vision the president has for America can. Not all Muslims belive that Sharia Law should supercede the law of the Land. Not all Christians are Pro-Life. Not all Budhist's shave there head. You are not grasping the difference here, and I admit it is a subtle but very important difference, either you are not very smart, or you are pretending to be dumb to get away with your ignorant claims.
 
Jarod said:
Stupid, no, being a member of a specific religen cannot disqualify a person, having a belife that is inconsistant with the vision the president has for America can. Not all Muslims belive that Sharia Law should supercede the law of the Land. Not all Christians are Pro-Life. Not all Budhist's shave there head. You are not grasping the difference here, and I admit it is a subtle but very important difference, either you are not very smart, or you are pretending to be dumb to get away with your ignorant claims.
Click to expand...

You are totally misinterpreting Article 6, and attempting to apply it in an irrational and illogical way, to presidential appointments to the cabinet. It just does not apply in that case, because the appointment (pursuant to the Constitution) is made BY THE PREZ! Nowhere does the Constitution say, the president has to consider ANY factor, it is UP TO THE PRESIDENT! When he does pick someone, he isn't going to tell you all the reasons he picked them or all the reasons he didn't pick someone else, he will simply say, as most do... that he picked "the best man for the job" and hopes Congress will approve his pick. You keep trying to manipulate Article 6 and have it apply here, when it can't apply here, it's impossible to enforce it. If the president picks a Baptist, has he discriminated against a Muslim who was equally qualified? Did the president consider all 350 million Americans to determine he had picked "the best man" for the job? How do we know he hasn't discriminated on the basis of religion in his pick? We just take his word for it that he didn't, or what?

Article 6 is specifically to prohibit the government from establishing religious tests for people seeking office. In other words, Congress can't pass a law that Muslims can't run for office or be appointed to public office. The president reserves the right to use whatever judgement he wishes in his appointments, and as I said, it most certainly CAN include his religion, religious beliefs, race, gender, or anything else.. the choice is the president's choice to make, according to the Constitution.
 
Jarod said:
First of all, Thats not what Cain said.

Second, the statement you quoted about Kennedy does not have anything to do with his religen, I dont believe your quote would describe unconstitutional action because it qualified the statement my limiting it to Muslims who belived in the implementation of Sharia Law. My my question would then be, why limit it to only Muslims, why not say, "I will nominate no person who belives in the implementation of Sharia Law."
Click to expand...

Because Sharia Law is muslim law, not just everyone's law.
 
Alias said:
The problem in this world isn't the Christian zealots. The problem in this world is Islamist religious thugs who are not only beating people up, but murdering people who don't believe what they want them to believe. You're very sick.
Click to expand...

Bitch please. You're entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to mine. I find no difference between pseudo Christian "crazies" like Westboro Church and Tony Perkins of the AFA, and Islamist extremists. Both are intent on "beating people up", verbally, if not physically, for having beliefs different than their own, which is the opposite of "freedom". And it would take someone "sick", to know someone "sick". bitch.
 
Dixie said:
I believe Robert Byrd authored quite a bit of legislation in his career.
Click to expand...

You're a one note idiot. Robert Byrd, dead, for at least two years, is no longer relevant or an issue. You keep trying to make his past life relevant, after he recanted his ways.
Non sequitur. Grasping at invisible straws.
 
poet said:
Bitch please. You're entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to mine. I find no difference between pseudo Christian "crazies" like Westboro Church and Tony Perkins of the AFA, and Islamist extremists. Both are intent on "beating people up", verbally, if not physically, for having beliefs different than their own, which is the opposite of "freedom". And it would take someone "sick", to know someone "sick". bitch.
Click to expand...

Cocksucker, please. Your opinion is wrong. You are speaking of a few nutty Christians who commit no violence compared to a world-wide organization and groups of Islamists who believe the Quran's teachings of kill the infidel and kill anyone who does not agree with their demands. You're a sick little fuck.
 
Alias said:
Cocksucker, please. Your opinion is wrong. You are speaking of a few nutty Christians who commit no violence compared to a world-wide organization and groups of Islamists who believe the Quran's teachings of kill the infidel and kill anyone who does not agree with their demands. You're a sick little fuck.
Click to expand...

That's you being hateful and bigoted. And what do you mean commit no violence? What about the abortion doctor that was murdered in his own church, during a service?
First of all the culprits aren't even bona fide Christians, but fake. And you've bought into propaganda about Muslims and what the Koran says. I believe in and support the 1st amendment of the Constitution of the United States...but then, again, I'm an American. And you're a racist and bigot. And paranoid.
 
Jarod said:
First of all, Thats not what Cain said.

Second, the statement you quoted about Kennedy does not have anything to do with his religen, I dont believe your quote would describe unconstitutional action because it qualified the statement my limiting it to Muslims who belived in the implementation of Sharia Law. My my question would then be, why limit it to only Muslims, why not say, "I will nominate no person who belives in the implementation of Sharia Law."
Click to expand...

first of all, to your first of all, yes.....it is....

second, to your second......do you know anyone besides Muslim's who believe in Sharia law?.....neither do the rest of us.....
 
Dixie said:
You are totally misinterpreting Article 6, and attempting to apply it in an irrational and illogical way, to presidential appointments to the cabinet. It just does not apply in that case, because the appointment (pursuant to the Constitution) is made BY THE PREZ! Nowhere does the Constitution say, the president has to consider ANY factor, it is UP TO THE PRESIDENT! When he does pick someone, he isn't going to tell you all the reasons he picked them or all the reasons he didn't pick someone else, he will simply say, as most do... that he picked "the best man for the job" and hopes Congress will approve his pick. You keep trying to manipulate Article 6 and have it apply here, when it can't apply here, it's impossible to enforce it. If the president picks a Baptist, has he discriminated against a Muslim who was equally qualified? Did the president consider all 350 million Americans to determine he had picked "the best man" for the job? How do we know he hasn't discriminated on the basis of religion in his pick? We just take his word for it that he didn't, or what?

Article 6 is specifically to prohibit the government from establishing religious tests for people seeking office. In other words, Congress can't pass a law that Muslims can't run for office or be appointed to public office. The president reserves the right to use whatever judgement he wishes in his appointments, and as I said, it most certainly CAN include his religion, religious beliefs, race, gender, or anything else.. the choice is the president's choice to make, according to the Constitution.
Click to expand...

I agree its generally unenforceable, but that does not mean its not a rule. When an idiot makes a statement like Cain did, it becomes an issue. There is a reason the framers of the Constitution worded it the way they did, and why they did not say, (except presidental appointments). If Cain were elected president (aint going to happen) and said, I would have picked Mohemed Al Jazera to be secretary of state, but for the fact that he was Muslam, Mohemed would have an argument to go to the court and get the position.

You are truely unintelegent.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
first of all, to your first of all, yes.....it is....

second, to your second......do you know anyone besides Muslim's who believe in Sharia law?.....neither do the rest of us.....
Click to expand...

1) Show me the quote where Cain said what you claim. It dont exist.

2) That ilrelevant to the point. It is possable someone could belive in Sharia law and not be muslim, its also possable that someone can be Muslim and not belive in Sharia Law. (That is the point)
 
Jarod said:
2) That ilrelevant to the point. It is possable someone could belive in Sharia law and not be muslim
Click to expand...

in that unlikely event, they should also be barred from serving in a judicial capacity.....

as to the quote, it is the one that is the subject of this argument.....
 
poet said:
That's you being hateful and bigoted. And what do you mean commit no violence? What about the abortion doctor that was murdered in his own church, during a service?
First of all the culprits aren't even bona fide Christians, but fake. And you've bought into propaganda about Muslims and what the Koran says. I believe in and support the 1st amendment of the Constitution of the United States...but then, again, I'm an American. And you're a racist and bigot. And paranoid.
Click to expand...

Cocksucker, please. There are Islamist suicide bombers blowing up people every day somewhere on the planet and all you can is gripe about some nut killing an abortion doctor. Sick little fuck.
 
Alias said:
Cocksucker, please. There are Islamist suicide bombers blowing up people every day somewhere on the planet and all you can is gripe about some nut killing an abortion doctor. Sick little fuck.
Click to expand...


Pedophile, please. I'm less concerned about that than I am about demagogues and miscreants, running 'round the planet, planting seeds of destruction and terror into the minds of ordinary citizens, for the express purpose of creating chaos and dissension. I know white, liberal doctors that perform abortions are not viable human beings, according to you...but in my humanistic view, worthy to be left alone to assist women in the decisions they have made about what to do about the contents of their own bodies.
Your bigoted and skewed world view, fortunately, is rare and unique, and hardly "mainstream". The only sick fuck would be you. If you think not, be my guest, and "ask around".

So mature of you to portray Obama as Pinocchio. That portrayal should go to any of the Repub candidates, who are incapable of telling the truth.

And cocksucker would be a more appropriate address of your mother.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top