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

[TooTall]

And that has what to do with their ability to run the country?

Everything. If you're going to be basing all of your decisions off of magical prophecies from thousands of years ago, you should let your people know.

Saying you believe in creation does not connect as you imply.

I think if you can't connect two dots you should let people know.

Can you clarify that a bit more? Connect what 2 dots?

Any two dots.

There is no logical way to arrive at the idea that simply because someone believes in God they will base all their decisions on "magical" prophecies from thousands of years ago....it does not follow.

Most Christians are hypocrites...but I know several who love their neighbors as themselves and who follow the admonitions of Jesus to care for their fellow man.

Or is that being crazy ?

You can't draw one from the other and the poster is obviously incapable of anything that isn't built into his prejudice.

Don't confuse hypocrites with sinners. All Christians are sinners.

 

[TooTall]

I see so then we can ask all Democratic candidates if they are going to leave the Southern border insecure support sanctuary cities and not enforce immigration laws because they are pandering to Hispanic voters

Absolutely you should ask that dumb question...implying that our southern border is "insecure"...and that city mayors are just puppets.....and that we don't have immigration laws and that ICE is just another brand of ice cream.

You forgot to say there aren't 12 million people in the US that are here illegally. Name a sanctuary city with a Republican Mayor and immigration laws are meaningless if Obama doesn't allow ICE to enforce them.

 

[TooTall]

So it's better to be like obama and claim Christianity to get the votes but hide your true feelings? Libs are amazing.

Yep....according to the closeted racists, there is a prayer rug facing east in the oval office.......right, weasel???

Christians don't use prayer rugs.

 

[Iceweasel]

Were we created fully formed or did we evolve from lower life forms as the paleological evidence suggests? Are the musings of a Bronze Age philosopher , or is the fossil record correct?

Should we give up on questions about the origin of the species because those questions are just too hard, or should we use the massive brain pan we are endowed with to search for a better, more complete explanation of the natural world?

A president who throws up his or her hands and gives up on answers would be an irresponsible president at best, a tragic figure to hold such a post at least.

You are stuck on a black and white interpretation. Science doesn't have the answers for life and many (most?) religious people believe the creator either guided the evolutionary process or it's built in to happen. Most Christians are not literal fundamentalists. It's irresponsible to repeatedly misrepresent others' opinions because you disagree with them politically.

 

[TooTall]

Do you believe Iran will abide by any agreements to not build nuclear weapons?

Who knows if they will abide by the agreement, if they do not they will suffer the consequences. They know we have the capacity to bomb them into the stone age.

If ten years pass and they have not, the Supreme Leader will be dead (hopefully) and a new generation of Iranian leaders maybe less crazy than the current theocratic crew.

Then again, the new leaders may be crazier than the current Muslims leaders. You aren't Obama and feel free to use the word Muslim when you discuss crazy leaders.

 

[LeftofLeft]

At every scheduled debate for the GOP primaries, each of the candidates should be asked one very simple question....just to separate the sane from the insane:

"Do you believe in creationism or evolution....."

The answer to the above can help dwindle down the number of whomever should even be given a microphone and a podium.

The one question that should be asked of every Democrat: "Which is more vital to the American economy: Policies that favor mass redistribution or policies that favor individual opportunity?

 

[Iceweasel]

Another question they could ask the lefties, what part of socialism do you actually disagree with?

 

[nat4900]

Another question they could ask the lefties, what part of socialism do you actually disagree with?

You seem dumber than usual....and that is not an easy task for you.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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?

Science doesn't claim to have truths, science and scientists are continually testing theories and laws; religion has faith.

You need to tell that to people like Nosmo, who claim religion is fairly tales and science is truth.

I'm certain he knows.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Another question they could ask the lefties, what part of socialism do you actually disagree with?

Though I'm not one of the mythical lefties, it's the ism part which disturbs me. I like social, as in social democracy and social contract. Social is the counterpoint to Callous Conservatism. The former is inclusive, the latter excludes.

Want proof, that Maryland poster claimed some members of our society were worthless. A corollary to the other callous conservative etho, "I've got mine, fuck the rest of you!"

 

[CremeBrulee]

That sounds like a question for Bible camp. I would rather candidates not answer questions about their faith or lack thereof. I couldn't care less about their religious beliefs, so long as they aren't acting upon them.

 

[The Rabbi]

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?

Science doesn't claim to have truths, science and scientists are continually testing theories and laws; religion has faith.

You need to tell that to people like Nosmo, who claim religion is fairly tales and science is truth.

I'm certain he knows.

clearly not. He believes Genesis is afairy tale made up by a Bronze Age philosopher (whatever that means) while Darwinism represents reality.

 

[The Rabbi]

Another question they could ask the lefties, what part of socialism do you actually disagree with?

Though I'm not one of the mythical lefties, it's the ism part which disturbs me. I like social, as in social democracy and social contract. Social is the counterpoint to Callous Conservatism. The former is inclusive, the latter excludes.

Want proof, that Maryland poster claimed some members of our society were worthless. A corollary to the other callous conservative etho, "I've got mine, fuck the rest of you!"

And the liberal ethos is: I've got mine. And fuck you because I've got yours too. Anyone want to buy some body parts?

 

[Iceweasel]

Another question they could ask the lefties, what part of socialism do you actually disagree with?

Though I'm not one of the mythical lefties, it's the ism part which disturbs me. I like social, as in social democracy and social contract. Social is the counterpoint to Callous Conservatism. The former is inclusive, the latter excludes.

Want proof, that Maryland poster claimed some members of our society were worthless. A corollary to the other callous conservative etho, "I've got mine, fuck the rest of you!"

LOL, you have no problem with "Callous Conservatism" but don't like ism when describing socialism. There's NO social contract when shit is being dictated to you, that's the main problem with socialism and if people don't want to fund every utopian wet dream you can come up with it's callous to you.

Yep, you're a hard core lefty, nothing mythical about it.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Do you believe Iran will abide by any agreements to not build nuclear weapons?

Who knows if they will abide by the agreement, if they do not they will suffer the consequences. They know we have the capacity to bomb them into the stone age.

If ten years pass and they have not, the Supreme Leader will be dead (hopefully) and a new generation of Iranian leaders maybe less crazy than the current theocratic crew.

Then again, the new leaders may be crazier than the current Muslims leaders. You aren't Obama and feel free to use the word Muslim when you discuss crazy leaders.

Your first sentence rings true. Imagine a Trump/Palin or a rerun of a Bush Administration. The neo cons are already beating the drums for war; we can't risk Bolton and the boys ever having power again.

As for Iran, more than half of its population is under 35 and the Green Revolution was put down by the arch conservative minority, mostly those who fear an open society will cost them dearly.

Diplomacy works, bombs alienate those they do not kill. Fell free to use the word neoconservative when you discuss Bush, aka JEB and any other member of the clown car who seeks military action over diplomacy.,

 

[Wry Catcher]

Another question they could ask the lefties, what part of socialism do you actually disagree with?

Though I'm not one of the mythical lefties, it's the ism part which disturbs me. I like social, as in social democracy and social contract. Social is the counterpoint to Callous Conservatism. The former is inclusive, the latter excludes.

Want proof, that Maryland poster claimed some members of our society were worthless. A corollary to the other callous conservative etho, "I've got mine, fuck the rest of you!"

LOL, you have no problem with "Callous Conservatism" but don't like ism when describing socialism. There's NO social contract when shit is being dictated to you, that's the main problem with socialism and if people don't want to fund every utopian wet dream you can come up with it's callous to you.

Yep, you're a hard core lefty, nothing mythical about it.

 

[SwimExpert]

For me, it matters because I would want to know to what degree their decisions are made based more on their faith than on facts and logic.

So yeah, I'd like to know that stuff.

.

Problem is, the question does not test their decision making. It is a question only of what they believe. A person can believe in creationism, but still make decisions based on logic. Likewise, a person can believe in evolution and base their decision making on personal biases and faith. The insanity of the global warming cult is a perfect example.

 

[SwimExpert]

Every scientist that isn't a liar will tell you, there is NO WAY POSSIBLE, AT ALL, EVER, that DNA could have RANDOMLY arranged itself into ANYTHING that would have either ONE, CREATED LIFE, or TWO, EVOLVED.

You're right, no scientist would ever claim that were possible. Now, if you were actually educated, you'd know that nothing you've said has anything to do with evolutionary theory.

 

[The Rabbi]

Do you believe Iran will abide by any agreements to not build nuclear weapons?

Who knows if they will abide by the agreement, if they do not they will suffer the consequences. They know we have the capacity to bomb them into the stone age.

If ten years pass and they have not, the Supreme Leader will be dead (hopefully) and a new generation of Iranian leaders maybe less crazy than the current theocratic crew.

Then again, the new leaders may be crazier than the current Muslims leaders. You aren't Obama and feel free to use the word Muslim when you discuss crazy leaders.

Your first sentence rings true. Imagine a Trump/Palin or a rerun of a Bush Administration. The neo cons are already beating the drums for war; we can't risk Bolton and the boys ever having power again.

As for Iran, more than half of its population is under 35 and the Green Revolution was put down by the arch conservative minority, mostly those who fear an open society will cost them dearly.

Diplomacy works, bombs alienate those they do not kill. Fell free to use the word neoconservative when you discuss Bush, aka JEB and any other member of the clown car who seeks military action over diplomacy.,

How many countries has Obama bombed? And you're worried about John Bolton?

 

[SwimExpert]

Explain The Big Bang, scumbag.

The big bang theory describes what, not why.