The ONE qst. that should be asked of every GOP candidate

[nat4900]

The intent of the O/P was actually rather simple......I, for one, do NOT trust a potential leader to base his or her opinions and judgment on religious doctrines because such doctrines (based on dubious scriptures) do not offer sound REASONING.

In the same way we castigate and deride a crazed terrorist for killing others in the name of some religious scripture, we cannot trust our own prospective leaders to base decisions and pass judgment on any other foundation but substantiated facts.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

The intent of the O/P was actually rather simple......I, for one, do NOT trust a potential leader to base his or her opinions and judgment on religious doctrines because such doctrines (based on dubious scriptures) do not offer sound REASONING.

In the same way we castigate and deride a crazed terrorist for killing others in the name of some religious scripture, we cannot trust our own prospective leaders to base decisions and pass judgment on any other foundation but substantiated facts.

do you remember the 70s?
we were supposed to be out of fossil fuel by now. Fact
we were heading into another Ice Age. Fact.
Science is not always right either. Maybe belief or desire to lead on either one is sound reason to disqualify

 

[Boss]

I didn't know human rights had "middle grounds". Please elucidate.

I didn't see anything about human rights. Homosexuals legitimizing their behavior is not a human right.

If homosexual people weren't allowed to join in matrimony with the opposite sex, that might constitute a violation of rights. Adults can't marry children... I'm sure many pedophiles would love to marry children... it's not their human right to do so.

The gay marriage thing has jumped the shark a long time ago on reason. The SCOTUS invented a right for gays to marry just as they invented a right for women to abort their babies.

 

[Uncensored2008]

More like good old fashioned common sense. Someone with ossified thinking should not be leading the Free World.

You view bigotry as "good old fashioned common sense?"

democrats, democrats never change...

 

[Boss]

The intent of the O/P was actually rather simple......I, for one, do NOT trust a potential leader to base his or her opinions and judgment on religious doctrines because such doctrines (based on dubious scriptures) do not offer sound REASONING.

In the same way we castigate and deride a crazed terrorist for killing others in the name of some religious scripture, we cannot trust our own prospective leaders to base decisions and pass judgment on any other foundation but substantiated facts.

Begs the question.... If not your spiritual faith and conviction, what else prompts sound reasoning? Nihilism? The belief that nothing really matters and "morality" is simply a man-made construct to control others? The belief that we're not ultimately accountable to anything?

I think the real DANGEROUS people in the world are the ones who have no moral foundation.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yep.......to idiots like you, the last 6.5 years have been torturous...just as if you had been confined to a cell at GITMO. right you dimwitted right winger??

I weathered it fairly well, but millions have abandoned the search for work and have resigned themselves to the reality of the Obamanation.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

The intent of the O/P was actually rather simple......I, for one, do NOT trust a potential leader to base his or her opinions and judgment on religious doctrines because such doctrines (based on dubious scriptures) do not offer sound REASONING.

In the same way we castigate and deride a crazed terrorist for killing others in the name of some religious scripture, we cannot trust our own prospective leaders to base decisions and pass judgment on any other foundation but substantiated facts.

Begs the question.... If not your spiritual faith and conviction, what else prompts sound reasoning? Nihilism? The belief that nothing really matters and "morality" is simply a man-made construct to control others? The belief that we're not ultimately accountable to anything?

I think the real DANGEROUS people in the world are the ones who have no moral foundation.

one can act In moral and compassionate way even without religion.
But it does lead me to wonder, are those morals and compassion the result of religion over the span of time?

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Yep.......to idiots like you, the last 6.5 years have been torturous...just as if you had been confined to a cell at GITMO. right you dimwitted right winger??

I weathered it fairly well, but millions have abandoned the search for work and have resigned themselves to the reality of the Obamanation.

not to mention constitutional rights being eroded and taken away

 

[Iceweasel]

The intent of the O/P was actually rather simple......I, for one, do NOT trust a potential leader to base his or her opinions and judgment on religious doctrines because such doctrines (based on dubious scriptures) do not offer sound REASONING.

In the same way we castigate and deride a crazed terrorist for killing others in the name of some religious scripture, we cannot trust our own prospective leaders to base decisions and pass judgment on any other foundation but substantiated facts.

obama claimed to be a Christian, did that rule him out? For all you know he really does believe in a creator. All you are doing is illustrating an extreme anti-religious bigotry. You are very much in the minority though so your vote won't amount to much.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Or possibly...."does it take a village?"

 

[Nosmo King]

More like good old fashioned common sense. Someone with ossified thinking should not be leading the Free World.

You view bigotry as "good old fashioned common sense?"

democrats, democrats never change...

What amazes me is the tacit endorsement for an anti-science President. But, then again, Conservatives hate science.

Why? Because science refutes Conservative values. Science tells us that the myth laid out in Genesis is wrong. Mankind did not magically appear fully formed like a potted geranium. Science tells us that mankind can and does screw up the environment, in spite of what the energy companies tell you. Science tells us that vaccines prevent diseases and should be administered to children to stem the tide of epidemics.

So why put someone who disdains science in charge of the government? To appease the other anti-science morons?

 

[Rozman]

Why not ask them if they believe in GOD....
That question will eliminate all Republican candidates...

 

[Iceweasel]

More like good old fashioned common sense. Someone with ossified thinking should not be leading the Free World.

You view bigotry as "good old fashioned common sense?"

democrats, democrats never change...

What amazes me is the tacit endorsement for an anti-science President. But, then again, Conservatives hate science.

Why? Because science refutes Conservative values. Science tells us that the myth laid out in Genesis is wrong. Mankind did not magically appear fully formed like a potted geranium. Science tells us that mankind can and does screw up the environment, in spite of what the energy companies tell you. Science tells us that vaccines prevent diseases and should be administered to children to stem the tide of epidemics.

So why put someone who disdains science in charge of the government? To appease the other anti-science morons?

You are a very confused individual. Not all conservatives are even religious. Many liberals are, you can't seem to focus on details. Science doesn't have the answer for life or the universe, why pretend that it does?

Who on the right is opposed to vaccines?

 

[Uncensored2008]

What amazes me is the tacit endorsement for an anti-science President. But, then again, Conservatives hate science.

Voltaire famously wrote "I may not agree with what you have to say, but will fight to the death to defend your right to say it."

You of the Khmer Rouge hold the inverse view; "You don't approve of what is said, so will fight to the death to silence it."

Leftists are bigots and hypocrites by nature, far too dull to grasp the irony of the conflicting positions they espouse.

Were a Conservative to suggest that a litmus test be conducted to weed out Muslims and ensure they be barred from public office, leftists and you personally would go ape-shit.

BUT disqualifying Christians tickles you pink.

Why? Because science refutes Conservative values. Science tells us that the myth laid out in Genesis is wrong. Mankind did not magically appear fully formed like a potted geranium. Science tells us that mankind can and does screw up the environment, in spite of what the energy companies tell you. Science tells us that vaccines prevent diseases and should be administered to children to stem the tide of epidemics.

So why put someone who disdains science in charge of the government? To appease the other anti-science morons?

Bigotry defines leftist values.

Science is a process of discovery, not a faith. The most hostile to the purpose and concepts of science are the cretins who spew "consensus" as a call to rigid adherence to dogma.

 

[Boss]

The intent of the O/P was actually rather simple......I, for one, do NOT trust a potential leader to base his or her opinions and judgment on religious doctrines because such doctrines (based on dubious scriptures) do not offer sound REASONING.

In the same way we castigate and deride a crazed terrorist for killing others in the name of some religious scripture, we cannot trust our own prospective leaders to base decisions and pass judgment on any other foundation but substantiated facts.

Begs the question.... If not your spiritual faith and conviction, what else prompts sound reasoning? Nihilism? The belief that nothing really matters and "morality" is simply a man-made construct to control others? The belief that we're not ultimately accountable to anything?

I think the real DANGEROUS people in the world are the ones who have no moral foundation.

one can act In moral and compassionate way even without religion.
But it does lead me to wonder, are those morals and compassion the result of religion over the span of time?

Well I have heard people CLAIM this all my life but I don't believe it's true. It's like saying someone can be a judge without knowing a thing about the law or caring about what the law says. Yeah, they can be... it's not EVER good. When you have no moral foundation and nothing to hold you to account, the human ego will create it's own version of morality based on self-interest.

 

[Boss]

Science tells us that the myth laid out in Genesis is wrong.

No it doesn't tell us any such thing.

 

[Boss]

Who on the right is opposed to vaccines?

That's what I am wondering... I have two close friends who are constantly posting stuff against vaccination on the social media... one is a full-blown liberal, the other is libertarian naturalist.

 

[nat4900]

obama claimed to be a Christian, did that rule him out? For all you know he really does believe in a creator. All you are doing is illustrating an extreme anti-religious bigotry. You are very much in the minority though so your vote won't amount to much.

See, this is when it gets tiring when debating with dingbats.....

I AM a Christian......to a large extent that means that I admire Christ's teachings......My original question was one regarding creationism and evolution, which is first testament doctrine and NOT much to do with Jesus and his message of peace and harmony.....

So, I do NOT mind if a candidates states that he or she is a Christian, but I DO mind when someone throws science out for the sake of a segment of the voters who are awaiting the rapture (which is just a western version of the 69 virgins.)

Hope that goes through your thick skull.

 

[Nosmo King]

What amazes me is the tacit endorsement for an anti-science President. But, then again, Conservatives hate science.

Voltaire famously wrote "I may not agree with what you have to say, but will fight to the death to defend your right to say it."

You of the Khmer Rouge hold the inverse view; "You don't approve of what is said, so will fight to the death to silence it."

Leftists are bigots and hypocrites by nature, far too dull to grasp the irony of the conflicting positions they espouse.

Were a Conservative to suggest that a litmus test be conducted to weed out Muslims and ensure they be barred from public office, leftists and you personally would go ape-shit.

BUT disqualifying Christians tickles you pink.

Why? Because science refutes Conservative values. Science tells us that the myth laid out in Genesis is wrong. Mankind did not magically appear fully formed like a potted geranium. Science tells us that mankind can and does screw up the environment, in spite of what the energy companies tell you. Science tells us that vaccines prevent diseases and should be administered to children to stem the tide of epidemics.

So why put someone who disdains science in charge of the government? To appease the other anti-science morons?

Bigotry defines leftist values.

Science is a process of discovery, not a faith. The most hostile to the purpose and concepts of science are the cretins who spew "consensus" as a call to rigid adherence to dogma.

Are all Christians adherents of creationism? That is the crux of your argument. I am not opposed to another Christian in the White House. I am opposed to someone who champions creationism running the country.

 

[Boss]

someone who champions creationism

What the hell does THAT mean?

Champion? You mean they aren't allowed to defend their Christian belief that God created us? Why?