Big Ol' Smitty 0 Report post Posted February 24, 2007 As Hagel pointed out himself on Russert's show, he has voted "with Bush" more than any other Senator. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
snuffbox 0 Report post Posted February 24, 2007 Czech, will you support Ron Paul? He has a nice lil 'R' in front of his name. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hogan Made Wrestling 0 Report post Posted February 24, 2007 Ron Paul would be a much more interesting candidate if his name didn't make him sound like a porn star. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuperJerk 0 Report post Posted February 24, 2007 For the Huckabee fanboys...this seems dumb. He is referring to the war islamiliberalcomuninonazifascism or whatever they're calling it these days. We need to understand that this is, in fact, World War III. Unlike any other world war we've ever fought, this one is one we cannot afford to lose...because losing it does not mean we lose some land or some geopolitical influence. It means we give up our own lives, because no less than that is the goal of the jihadists. Isn't that what Glen Beck's been saying? I'd hate to think a candidate for national office was relying on him for their talking points. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
snuffbox 0 Report post Posted February 26, 2007 Another great showing from Bill Richardson in NH this weekend. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuperJerk 0 Report post Posted February 26, 2007 I didn't hear about this quote from Mitt Romney until today: One of the great things about this land is that we have people of different faiths and different religions, but we need to have a person of faith lead the country. Hey, Mitt... The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. Asshole. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hyperchord24 0 Report post Posted February 26, 2007 Well, sure you don't need to have a person of faith run the country, but it isn't like someone who admitted publicly to being an atheist is going to be elected any time soon. So while there is a clear separation of church and state, religion is a very big deal to people in the US. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Oedipus Rex Report post Posted February 26, 2007 Surely Romney meant that the current cultural climate may necessitate a man of faith to lead the country, which I don't fully agree with, but I do understand what he meant to say. It's not as if you're tripping him up by posting articles of the Constitution that he wasn't aware of or something. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
snuffbox 0 Report post Posted February 26, 2007 I really doubt American voters are going to be keen on another Higher Power Candidate after the last 7 years. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hyperchord24 0 Report post Posted February 26, 2007 I really doubt American voters are going to be keen on another Higher Power Candidate after the last 7 years. Agreed. I know the evangelical christian vote is pretty big, but I think I read that even they've lost faith in the man whom God tells what to do. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dobbs 3K 0 Report post Posted February 26, 2007 Well, I think more than that is the fact people are sick of how Bush has been clearly more motivated by transparent political purposes and neo-con philosophy than any religious influences, despite what he says. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
snuffbox 0 Report post Posted February 26, 2007 Romney hasnt really been showing any strength of convictions either with his pandering and mind-changing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dobbs 3K 0 Report post Posted February 26, 2007 Yeah, can't we just have a candidate who picks a set of beliefs and a solid platform, without waffling back and forth or giving vague answers? I'd be more apt to vote for someone who could clearly state their platform, even if I didn't agree 100% with them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuperJerk 0 Report post Posted February 26, 2007 Surely Romney meant that the current cultural climate may necessitate a man of faith to lead the country, which I don't fully agree with, but I do understand what he meant to say. It's not as if you're tripping him up by posting articles of the Constitution that he wasn't aware of or something. He wasn't making a statement about electability, he was saying what quality he thought America's leader needs. He said "we need to have a person of faith lead the country." Meaning that he thinks only religious people are good enough to be president. I don't see how that can be interpreted any other way. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dobbs 3K 0 Report post Posted February 26, 2007 Well, over the 20th century Americans were conditioned to believe that faith in leadership was a good thing, since the godless fascists and communists were the enemy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Big Ol' Smitty 0 Report post Posted February 26, 2007 The fascists weren't godless. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dobbs 3K 0 Report post Posted February 26, 2007 Well, they certainly put the state above any god. I don't think people thought of Hitler or Mussolini as good Christian men or anything. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EricMM 0 Report post Posted February 27, 2007 And...we don't? We're not supposed to? OUR people aren't supposed to? Come on. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Big Ol' Smitty 0 Report post Posted February 27, 2007 Well, they certainly put the state above any god. By that same token, couldn't you argue that liberal democracy "puts the individual above any god"? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Oedipus Rex Report post Posted February 27, 2007 Surely Romney meant that the current cultural climate may necessitate a man of faith to lead the country, which I don't fully agree with, but I do understand what he meant to say. It's not as if you're tripping him up by posting articles of the Constitution that he wasn't aware of or something. He wasn't making a statement about electability, he was saying what quality he thought America's leader needs. He said "we need to have a person of faith lead the country." Meaning that he thinks only religious people are good enough to be president. I don't see how that can be interpreted any other way. Well, that's what he thinks. He also thinks the Iroquois are displaced Israelites. It's just his opinion, not some claim that only Christians are legally allowed to lead. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hyperchord24 0 Report post Posted February 27, 2007 Yeah, can't we just have a candidate who picks a set of beliefs and a solid platform, without waffling back and forth or giving vague answers? I'd be more apt to vote for someone who could clearly state their platform, even if I didn't agree 100% with them. I hope you're being sarcastic. You do realise that this line of thought is what keeps us in Iraq. Because our leaders are too stubborn to admit when they're wrong and change their mind and oh - God forbid - be a flip flopper, we suffer. EDIT: I see what you mean though about campaigning anyway. Oh and @Jerk: The direct quote says to me that right now and at this point in time a religous leader is needed, not the general sweeping statement you interpret it as. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dobbs 3K 0 Report post Posted February 27, 2007 Yeah, can't we just have a candidate who picks a set of beliefs and a solid platform, without waffling back and forth or giving vague answers? I'd be more apt to vote for someone who could clearly state their platform, even if I didn't agree 100% with them. I hope you're being sarcastic. You do realise that this line of thought is what keeps us in Iraq. Because our leaders are too stubborn to admit when they're wrong and change their mind and oh - God forbid - be a flip flopper, we suffer. EDIT: I see what you mean though about campaigning anyway. Oh and @Jerk: The direct quote says to me that right now and at this point in time a religous leader is needed, not the general sweeping statement you interpret it as. I'm not talking about war strategy. I'm talking about an election platform. They're two completely different things. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hogan Made Wrestling 0 Report post Posted February 27, 2007 If nothing else, Romney's statement is idiotic because he is just about the last candidate that should be making religion an issue. Last I checked, there is no agnostic or atheist among the leading candidates, so why bother drawing attention towards religious issues when your religion is probably the one people are going to be the most apprehensive towards? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Big Ol' Smitty 0 Report post Posted February 28, 2007 Question. Who makes the best VP pick for each of the frontrunners? I'll throw some out. Clinton: Bill Richardson, Mark Warner, Wesley Clark, Barack Obama, Kathleen Sebelius Obama: Wesley Clark, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden Edwards: Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, Mark Warner, Kathleen Sebelius McCain: Rudy Guiliani, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich Guiliani: John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich Romney: McCain or Guiliani, Huckabee You can see that I have more trouble finding mates for the Rs. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Big Ol' Smitty 0 Report post Posted February 28, 2007 Also, Chuck Hagel has made noises about running 3rd party, I think. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
snuffbox 0 Report post Posted February 28, 2007 Brownback might balance out Rudy fairly well in a national election. Obama/Clark. Clinton/Richardson. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
snuffbox 0 Report post Posted March 1, 2007 McCain makes it official on Letterman tonight. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dobbs 3K 0 Report post Posted March 1, 2007 McCain's going on Letterman...won't Letterman tear apart the new neo-con John McCain, or are they friends or something? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Danville_Wrestling 0 Report post Posted March 1, 2007 Also, Chuck Hagel has made noises about running 3rd party, I think. Just what we need, a conservative independent running to split the vote and hand the Clinton's the White House for the third time. I think Bill Richardson is a pretty good VP candidate for any of the Democrats who might win. Hell, I'm still putting money on a candidate that comes in late to the race because people are going to grow tired of all of this "Hillary!....Obama!.....Hillary!.....Obama!" stuff in the media. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuperJerk 0 Report post Posted March 1, 2007 Oh and @Jerk: The direct quote says to me that right now and at this point in time a religous leader is needed, not the general sweeping statement you interpret it as. Saying we need a religious president is the same thing as saying we don't need a non-religious president. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
