Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The NO vote is winning as of now, but the results for YES are very disturbing (as in, I can't believe anybody would even vote YES to a Muslim). Are we that serious?
What are you trying to say? Voting for people with religious conviction is wrong? Then Bush had no business being in office. (for clarity, I view all religions the same way; with healthy skepticism).
It should be noted that plenty of politicians say they are religious and really only say that for political gain. You're telling me nearly every congressman goes to church and reads the Bible? That's funny. Odds are, there's less than a 2% chance an actually dangerous Muslim would get that close to the presidency, just as the odds of a hardcore Christian fundamentalist wouldn't get much closer. People don't vote for the mentally inadequate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gentlearts
Absolutely not. I know there are good American Muslims, but since it is impossible to differentiate who is a sympathizer with the radical Muslims and who is not, I couldn't vote for one.
It's not that hard really. Not harder than differentiating the smart Christians with the guys who think Earth is 6,000 years old. However, if I've learned one thing in my time on Earth, the people with the strongest religious convictions, including the dangerous ones, tend to make their beliefs very clear to the world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC
Our current Muslim sympathizer is in the back pockets of CAIR....a quasi-hate organization operating under the guise of tolerance. Our current Muslim sympathizer on Day 1 decided that there would be "sunlight" between America and Israel. Our current Muslim sympathizer (ie. Mr. Bow At The Hips) is so paralyzed by Muslim sympathies that his foreign policy is in shambles. Our current Muslim sympathizer eradicated words like "War On Terror" because he thought it offended Muslims. The list goes on an on. What makes you think that a full-blown Muslim would operate with less enthusiasm for Muslim affairs than our current worthless Muslim-sympathizing President?
Reagan was president when Al Qaeda to combat the USSR. Wait, that can't be right? Jesus' twin brother, Ron, would never fund the terrorist group that caused 9/11... this can't be.
And for the sake of clarity, I view Reagan's 'friendship' with Al Qaeda just as badly as Obama's support as CAIR.
Israel is not America's problem. They've been around long enough. Their dependency upon us is not longer acceptable. I don't care if they're 'the democracy in the Middle East.' Good for them. But we can't spend all of our money on a country smaller than Massachusetts.
Obama's foreign policy is honestly only slightly worse than Bush's. Most of what Obama has done, Bush laid the foundation for (like ISIS). Do I blame Bush? No more than I do Obama. Neither preformed as a president should.
There is no war on terror. At least not as it's presented. We've been force fed the obvious lie that the terrorists are after our freedom, and maybe they are. But if the War on Terror is protecting our freedom, how is it the government surveillance of it's people has increased since 2001 (or at least we've noticed it increasing that long)? The War on Terror is not about our security; only a fool would think it is. At least Obama did away with the name.
Bush was a Christian. Does he think the Earth is 6,000 years old? If so (which arguably I'd believe), then you may have a point. But every other Christian president likely didn't mindlessly support any group with a Christian base. I think it's safe to say Bush was not pro-WBC. This in mind, a Muslim president wouldn't have to support ISIS or Hamas.
Commandment #1 is an enjoinder to believers, who have voluntarily submitted to the religion. The 1st Amendment is a limitation on Congress against circumventing that voluntary choice. Where is the contradiction?
Deuteronomy 17:1-5
“And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heavens, which I have not commanded. Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing and shalt stone them with stones, till they die”.
the bible specifically states that people should be killed for something that is completely acceptable ( even supported ) under the US constitution. i'd say that's contradicting ideas.
"no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
Article VI, paragraph 3, United States Constitution
The Oath of Office: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
No Muslim could ever repeat that with conviction either.
It seems the last couple of Presidents, who claim to be Christians, can't seem to follow through either.
First day in office. 'My first executive action. I have a pen and a phone so I hereby declare that the U.S. Constitution is null and void and Sharia will be the law of the land'. I also declare that the borders of the U.S. no longer exist.
I would be afraid that a Muslim president would implement Sharia Law by executive order. To be honest, I don't know much about Sharia Law, but I don't like it. America law is based on the ten commandments and that is the way it should stay.
Israel is not America's problem. They've been around long enough. Their dependency upon us is not longer acceptable. I don't care if they're 'the democracy in the Middle East.' Good for them. But we can't spend all of our money on a country smaller than Massachusetts.
Obama's foreign policy is honestly only slightly worse than Bush's. Most of what Obama has done, Bush laid the foundation for (like ISIS). Do I blame Bush? No more than I do Obama. Neither preformed as a president should.
There is no war on terror. At least not as it's presented. We've been force fed the obvious lie that the terrorists are after our freedom, and maybe they are. But if the War on Terror is protecting our freedom, how is it the government surveillance of it's people has increased since 2001 (or at least we've noticed it increasing that long)? The War on Terror is not about our security; only a fool would think it is. At least Obama did away with the name.
Bush was a Christian. Does he think the Earth is 6,000 years old? If so (which arguably I'd believe), then you may have a point. But every other Christian president likely didn't mindlessly support any group with a Christian base. I think it's safe to say Bush was not pro-WBC. This in mind, a Muslim president wouldn't have to support ISIS or Hamas.
Come again? We sent $3B to Israel, so saying we send "all of our money" is dishonest. It's no more than spit in a bucket. We send $40B a year in foreign aid, and we get far less from all the other countries, then we get from Israel. Consider we have billions in trade interests with them to protect. It's simple minded to have such a simplistic view of something so multidimensional.
There may not be a named war on terror, but there is certainly a war OF terror on us. Muslims, no matter how liberals would like it worded, account for the vast percentage of terrorist actions around the world.
I agree, both Presidents abused/abuse their office to grease the palms of their masters. The one thing that separates the two is that Obama ran on being the polar opposite of Bush, and then became exactly the same on steroids, making him insidious as well as an arrogant narcissist.
------
As for that last ridiculously wacko assumption: The majority of Christians are not literalists. You may pat yourself on the back for believing otherwise, but it is a misguided belief. Ironic, your belief is as misguided as the tiny minority of Christians you place all of us with.
Hint: a year is a thousand years to God. 6000x1000=6M years, at the very least, using your fictitious number. The Hebrew calendar is at 5775 recorded years and is a hybrid of the Babylonian calendar, rendering the 6000 year old earth a ridiculous notion from anyone, of any belief.
Certainly...my concern is whether he or she will carry out the responsibilities of the office in the best manner.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
