BoatShoes;1751538 wrote:Let's just say this. How terrible really has the Democratic Party been and Barack Obama in the mind of average people if millions are even considering voting for these guys? Watched the debate with my dad who has spent his whole life running the family business and is not into politics. He was a big John McCain fan because he respected his military record and he doesn't really care one way or the other about Obama. He is sitting there with this "wtf" look on his face as these guys are up there talking about war, vaccines, gay marriage, planned parenthood.

A damn genius pediatric neurosurgeon doesn't slam Trump when he claims that a baby got autism from a horse needle in front of millions of people in a U.S. Presidential Debate. Strange times.

It does seem a little bizarre that we are even asking these questions in 2015. The reality is this, the GOP will continue to get crushed in national elections until they drop all the religious BS and backwards social ideas.

The vaccine exchange was the strangest of all. Dr. Carson should have immediately said he is wrong and then transitioned that into some sort of comment on his healthcare plan. Dr. Carson has ZERO balls and ZERO personality; so boring.

Tiernan;1751409 wrote:Yeah I don't get the intensity of the anti-gay and anti-abortion BS being the foremost important issue in America. But about half these Repub idiots want them front & center. Jesus Cheist people quit worrying about who somebody else is fucking and whether or not they want a baby after they do finally fuck.

Jesus Cheist is that the Gaelic Guy

If I was running the debates Rep or Dem I would flash under the cannidate as they are answering the question four labels.
right , left , liberal, wtf
at the end of the nigth the tally would be posted for each canidiate ....

Note at this point in the GOP .... I have no idea who I want running. Go with the women so the Rep Party can claim to have the first women president... Democrats claim the incompetent Black guy.

Belly35;1751551 wrote:Jesus Cheist is that the Gaelic Guy

If I was running the debates Rep or Dem I would flash under the cannidate as they are answering the question four labels.
right , left , liberal, wtf
at the end of the nigth the tally would be posted for each canidiate ....

Note at this point in the GOP .... I have no idea who I want running. Go with the women so the Rep Party can claim to have the first women president... Democrats claim the incompetent Black guy.

I certainly hope people don't just vote for someone because of the color of their skin or their gender but we saw what happened last time.

sleeper;1751562 wrote:I certainly hope people don't just vote for someone because of the color of their skin or their gender but we saw what happened last time.

“Never invest in anything based on color”

At Rydawg....It's important to note here that you are generalizing. Most certainly some Christians are hypocritical and possess cognitive dissonance just like every human does. Christianity teaches us that all men are sinners, and it follows that we, as men must expect that. That all people are less than perfect, in the practice of their Christianity, is not the fault of the religion, but thru the individual failings of men... Something common to us all. This not unique among religions... Consider that Buddhists spend their entire lives(lifetimes) working on perfecting their spirituality. You cannot expect any more from Christians.... Flawed humans that we are.

That religious beliefs( or non beliefs) spill over into politics is inescapable .

That doesn't make you a better Christian because you love your mom. What does, though, is that you can love strangers/enemies/gays as yourself.

and it follows that the opposite is true also...you must love the anti gays as well...as repugnant as they may seem to be to you. Keep in mind, that these people, have been dealt a political loss that has shaken their core belief system. They may need time to come to realize that the SCOTUS decision was indeed righteous. Some empathy in this situation is not a bad thing.

HitsRus;1751575 wrote:and it follows that the opposite is true also...you must love the anti gays as well...as repugnant as they may seem to be to you. Keep in mind, that these people, have been dealt a political loss that has shaken their core belief system. They may need time to come to realize that the SCOTUS decision was indeed righteous. Some empathy in this situation is not a bad thing.

How does it shake their core belief system? They still can follow their faith by not marrying someone of the same sex. Allowing others, who do not believe in what you believe, to marry someone of the same sex has no impact on you.

BoatShoes;1751538 wrote:Let's just say this. How terrible really has the Democratic Party been and Barack Obama in the mind of average people if millions are even considering voting for these guys? Watched the debate with my dad who has spent his whole life running the family business and is not into politics. He was a big John McCain fan because he respected his military record and he doesn't really care one way or the other about Obama. He is sitting there with this "wtf" look on his face as these guys are up there talking about war, vaccines, gay marriage, planned parenthood.

A damn genius pediatric neurosurgeon doesn't slam Trump when he claims that a baby got autism from a horse needle in front of millions of people in a U.S. Presidential Debate. Strange times.

I agree with you entirely… WTF are we doing wasting our time discussing this trivial crap. The serious GOP candidates minimize this stuff… Rubio Fiorina, Kasich, and Carson... And that's probably one reason why they are climbing in the polls. But it is not necessarily the fault of the candidates that the debate ended up emphasizing a lot of the stuff... When the CM and moderators were determined to continue to put that stuff in front of them for discussion. It's a little bit interesting when FOXNews takes the hit for the the first debate being crap.... It's the fault of the Republican candidates for the CNN circus sideshow. The moderators need to be able to focus the questions to the most relevant and important topics. It would be better if these debates were more focused on certain specific issues. Four instance ,the first debate could be about social issues. The second debate about foreign-policy. The third debate about the economy. Etc Etc.

BoatShoes;1751538 wrote:Let's just say this. How terrible really has the Democratic Party been and Barack Obama in the mind of average people if millions are even considering voting for these guys? Watched the debate with my dad who has spent his whole life running the family business and is not into politics. He was a big John McCain fan because he respected his military record and he doesn't really care one way or the other about Obama. He is sitting there with this "wtf" look on his face as these guys are up there talking about war, vaccines, gay marriage, planned parenthood.

A damn genius pediatric neurosurgeon doesn't slam Trump when he claims that a baby got autism from a horse needle in front of millions of people in a U.S. Presidential Debate. Strange times.

I agree with you entirely… WTF are we doing wasting our time discussing this trivial crap. The serious GOP candidates minimize this stuff… Rubio Fiorina, Kasich, and Carson... And that's probably one reason why they are climbing in the polls. But it is not necessarily the fault of the candidates that the debate ended up emphasizing a lot of the stuff... When the CNN moderators were determined to continue to put that stuff in front of them for discussion. It's a little bit interesting when FOXNews takes the hit for the the first debate being crap.... It's the fault of the Republican candidates for the CNN circus sideshow. The moderators need to be able to focus the questions to the most relevant and important topics. It would be better if these debates were more focused on certain specific issues. Four instance ,the first debate could be about social issues. The second debate about foreign-policy. The third debate about the economy. Etc Etc.

sleeper;1751577 wrote:How does it shake their core belief system? They still can follow their faith by not marrying someone of the same sex. Allowing others, who do not believe in what you believe, to marry someone of the same sex has no impact on you.

Yeah, the crux of the issue is that that the hardcore religious right is crying oppression because they're being told their religious beliefs don't give them the right to cherry-pick passages from their book to oppress others. It's basically comparable to a schoolyard bully being told to stop beating up on other kids and then crying to his parents that the school has it out for him.

Hits: agreed. I want to hear what the candidates have to say on the issues. NOT why they think about the "he-said/she-said" crap we heard Wednesday night.

What is a candidate who wants to communicate his or her stance o the issues supposed to do when for a third or fourth time they are asked about something? Sticking to the issues would only get you silenced and mocked. Very frustrating.

Heretic;1751589 wrote:Yeah, the crux of the issue is that that the hardcore religious right is crying oppression because they're being told their religious beliefs don't give them the right to cherry-pick passages from their book to oppress others. It's basically comparable to a schoolyard bully being told to stop beating up on other kids and then crying to his parents that the school has it out for him.

There still is some gray area that needs to be hashed out. Is refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding protected under your religious freedoms? I don't know honestly.

Mostly I was arguing that you don't need time to adjust to your beliefs being shaken. Your beliefs are just that, beliefs, and they do not apply to everyone in the country. Religious people need to grow up. This is not a Christian nation, this is a nation of many beliefs including those that are entirely secular.

And another thing - I am a bit surprised no candidate has thought of this - with all of the live streaming technology available (Periscope as one example), why not avoid being on stage but rather sit in front of a camera and tune in with the rest of the nation? As a question gets asked, take as long as you want to answer the question; rebuttal however you want! It would CERTAINLY beat getting only 30 seconds to answer a question that would take minutes to unravel.

And you'd never have a moderator cutting you off with "Thnak you, sir. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir."

I'll give my opinion on the whole "gay cake for a wedding" issue. I don't think business owners should have to do something that directly violates their individual beliefs. I don't think business owners should be able to refuse services to gay customers however and that's a easy distinction.

Just like a black owner of a cake shop should be able to refuse to make a cake for a KKK meeting so should religious people.

Anyway, I don't want this thread to turn into another gay thread, but the reality is the GOP needs to grow up if its going to get the next generation of voters to have any interest in what they are saying. Old, religious people are dying and its time to realize the base of voters you can move think you are fucking retarded for talking about PP, gay rights, vaccines, and war.

No one I have ever been around has ever claimed this is a Christian nation. All of them have said the tenets on which this nation was founded are Judeo-Christian values (private property, individual freedoms, etc). The only people I have ever heard state the U.S. being a Christian nation is when opponents of theism state it.

cruiser_96;1751596 wrote:No one I have ever been around has ever claimed this is a Christian nation. All of them have said the tenets on which this nation was founded are Judeo-Christian values (private property, individual freedoms, etc). The only people I have ever heard state the U.S. being a Christian nation is when opponents of theism state it.

It's not a Christian nation in any way. Religious people don't like that the country has grown up and there no longer is a religious(read: backwards) slant to issues in this country. Time for religious people to realize that they no longer have a monopoly in this country and their beliefs should be kept to themselves.

Mostly I was arguing that you don't need time to adjust to your beliefs being shaken. Your beliefs are just that, beliefs, and they do not apply to everyone in the country. Religious people need to grow up. This is not a Christian nation, this is a nation of many beliefs including those that are entirely secular.

You are too hung up on being anti-religion.
Rightly or wrongly, it's an undisputed fact that this country was decidedly anti-gay before the turn of the millenium, not just Christians. It's only been the last 15 years, and more specifically, the last seven or eight when the attitudes in this country began to evolve about same-sex marriage is at homosexuality in general. That some are still not "On board" should not be a surprise. A lot of people have grown up with those (mistaken) deep-seated ideas.

Sleeper: I'll agree that it's a tough situation. How does the federal government adhere to its own documents and not violating the establishment clause at the same time not violating the free exercise thereof clause!? It would seem to me that exericing the one would violate the other.

Edit: no one I know has ever stated it was a Christian nation. I cannot make it any clearer that the only people I have ever heard state that are anti-theist.

HitsRus;1751600 wrote:You are too hung up on being anti-religion.
Rightly or wrongly, it's an undisputed fact that this country was decidedly anti-gay before the turn of the millenium, not just Christians. It's only been the last 15 years, and more specifically, the last seven or eight when the attitudes in this country began to evolve about same-sex marriage is at homosexuality in general. That some are still not "On board" should not be a surprise. A lot of people have grown up with those (mistaken) deep-seated ideas.

I don't dispute the history but that is entirely irrelevant. I'm asking why do you need time to adjust; there is zero impact on your core beliefs since you can still freely practice your religion.

Hits: careful on the point that attitudes have changed. I am pretty sure more than one state voted via election that marriage defined in their state's legislation was one-man/one-woman, only to have an activist judge overrule the vote. California it occurred. Can't remember about South Carolina. Currently in Kentuky KRS 402.005 states it clearly.

cruiser_96;1751601 wrote:Sleeper: I'll agree that it's a tough situation. How does the federal government adhere to its own documents and not violating the establishment clause at the same time not violating the free exercise thereof clause!? It would seem to me that exericing the one would violate the other.

Edit: no one I know has ever stated it was a Christian nation. I cannot make it any clearer that the only people I have ever heard state that are anti-theist.

I don't know, but that's why we have the court system to help figure it out.

Sleeper: To your point about the GOP getting to real issues, it seems that Trump and Carson, perhaps even Christie, are at the forefront of trying to speak about getting jobs in place for Americans. ...that is, until a moderator switches the subject.

cruiser_96;1751603 wrote:Hits: careful on the point that attitudes have changed. I am pretty sure more than one state voted via election that marriage defined in their state's legislation was one-man/one-woman, only to have an activist judge overrule the vote. California it occurred. Can't remember about South Carolina. Currently in Kentuky KRS 402.005 states it clearly.

Oh, I'm certain that attitudes have changed in general In the population of the United States. Prior to 2000 I would bet that 90% of this country would've been opposed to same-sex marriage and legal rights for gays. I think that number has dropped dramatically. There still may be pockets where individual state legislatures are controlled by those opposed to gay-rights. But, even among devout Christians the attitudes have changed dramatically such that it is only really the fundamentalists that are having difficulty with this. That it is generalized to all Christians… And to all Republicans… Should be recognized for the political ploy that it actually is. Both those of the far right and the far are manipulating the divisiveness for their own political game and to the detriment of us all as a whole.

cruiser_96;1751596 wrote:No one I have ever been around has ever claimed this is a Christian nation.

I'm not saying you don't know anyone who has, but my Facebook feed is littered with memes about how we need god in this or god in that. Many of my family and friends at ultra religious and they do think this country is a christian nation. We have "in god we trust" on our money and pledge allegiance to "one country under God".

It's not an argument I choose to take up with them. It's funny to me how you can spend time with someone and get along with them perfectly in real life and then you see the crap - not just religious posts, but in general - they put on Facebook and wonder who is this person?

rydawg5;1751540 wrote:Are Christians sympathetic to the poor? Yes. Are non-Christians sympathetic to the poor? Yes.

New Testament says in a very summarized fashion: What good is it to think you are loving because you love your mom/brother? Even a sinner loves their moms. That doesn't make you a better Christian because you love your mom. What does, though, is that you can love strangers/enemies/gays as yourself. To be a peacemaker. This is how much you actually love God. Loving your neighbor is the Greatest Commandment.

It bothers me that we are so set on being divisive as Christians. I just don't feel like that's our purpose. But we are meant to do different things, so maybe it's just not for me.

I find it interesting that some of my religious friends think gays/Muslims/Mexicans are going to be the end of this country and we need to do something about them. That doesn't seem very christian like to me at all.