Who would like to see Clinton back in White House again?

Do you wish for more term limit fix in Constitution?

  • Let Bill come back again

    Votes: 21 48.8%

  • Hell no, I'm tired of all the scandals that went on when he was prez

    Votes: 15 34.9%

  • I'm staying on the fence

    Votes: 7 16.3%
  • Total voters
    43
Oh on a side note...Bush_in_2004, you're just like me....pro-freedom. :D
 
Originally posted by SilenceGold
They want a country that is stable. A person being atheist could be regarded as unstable (with no moral proof). I am not sure what I am saying might be clear to the rest of you...I'm having difficult times trying to be more clearer...maybe someone else understands what I am trying to say?
Click to expand...

Do you mean you want a country with solid moral sense and that we unify with common moral grounds?
 
Originally posted by Bush_in_2004!
Waterrats asked: "What does the subject God have to do with politics? Could you explain in depth, please, so I can understand what you were talking about? Please? Ta!"

okay, since you asked . . .

If I were to run for president a press conference would go like this:

reporter: pro or anti-abortion?

me: pro choice.

reporter: marriage restricted to hetrosexuals?

me: marriage open to all genders, mix or match.

reporter: what religious faith do you subscribe to?

me: none. I'm agnositic.

(silence in the room).

(reporters jotting notes down in notebooks)

(the silence of votes doing down the drain.)





in today's society agnositic people, or atheists for that matter, are unelectable in national politics -- the U.S. is still a God-Fearing country.
Click to expand...

Well, you have a point there -- still, the subject of religion should be an open case -- don't have to have a specific religion to be politicially involved, don't you? All I would say is that I believe in God, period. No specific religions. Will that have an impact on votes as well?
 
Originally posted by WaterRats13
Well, you have a point there -- still, the subject of religion should be an open case -- don't have to have a specific religion to be politicially involved, don't you? All I would say is that I believe in God, period. No specific religions. Will that have an impact on votes as well?
Click to expand...

I agree, hence the intention of democracy. If you want things changed around here, you got to start influencing them. Otherwise, eat it up. Our decision to run things around here is based on our beliefs, what we think is right or wrong. Therefore, that, indeed, have impact on votes.
 
Originally posted by LinuxGold
Do you mean you want a country with solid moral sense and that we unify with common moral grounds?
Click to expand...

No I'm not saying that I want that. I'm saying they as majority of the american people.
 
waterrats sez: "All I would say is that I believe in God, period. No specific religions. Will that have an impact on votes as well?"

good question. there may be some politicans that could pull it off, but in most cases they'd have a serious disadvantage.
 
Originally posted by SilenceGold
No I'm not saying that I want that. I'm saying they as majority of the american people.
Click to expand...
*pulls out blanket* *covers myself in it*
Sorry Sir!
 
Originally posted by Bush_in_2004!
waterrats sez: "All I would say is that I believe in God, period. No specific religions. Will that have an impact on votes as well?"

good question. there may be some politicans that could pull it off, but in most cases they'd have a serious disadvantage.
Click to expand...

Serious disadvantage to what point? I must warn you that I'm not really into politics, just have a basic knowledge of it...not in depth. :) Bear with me.
 
water,

Here's the disadvantage: a person believes in God but doesn't afflix themselves to a church would have to spend extra time explaining themselves, then more time convincing others that they are just as "religious" as the next guy.

All this time would be better spent on the issues trying to get elected.

Meanwhile your opponent is already deep into the issues convining voters to vote for them and may even use the "no church problem" against you.
 
must agree considering this, relglious should be govern by the reglious bishop IE the pope, while we run the goverment....
 
Originally posted by Bush_in_2004!
water,

Here's the disadvantage: a person believes in God but doesn't afflix themselves to a church would have to spend extra time explaining themselves, then more time convincing others that they are just as "religious" as the next guy.

All this time would be better spent on the issues trying to get elected.

Meanwhile your opponent is already deep into the issues convining voters to vote for them and may even use the "no church problem" against you.
Click to expand...

Well, it's better spending extra time explaining themselves rather than labelling themselves as one of the religious bodies and then get caught out lying that they were never part of that body. That's even worse.
 
No..it's all moral.

Would you want a guy who has 20 pierced jewlery, full body tattoo, regularly found with different women, flashing around with pieces of clothes (which actually aren't clothes), and few other dismarking characteristics of himself.....as the president of the USA?

If you are into a religion...it's more of a proof to back up your own morals...

I would be in Bush_in_2004!'s shoes when it comes to those reporters asking me questions.
 
It would be hard to keep religion and politics separate, let's consider this scenario (Let's suppose that I am a conservative Christian):

Bible teaches that we ought to have capital punishment, and I learned that way, it becomes my moral sense.

According to my moral sense, (now separated from religion issues because I'm explaining about what I think is right) I think we should continue with Capital Punishment because I *felt* that it is right thing to do.

Consider another scenario:

Bible teaches that we shouldn't look at bare skin above woman's knee else than our wives, and it is considered as a sin. I grew up believing that and became part of my moral sense. (now separate from religion) I think that advertisement is giving a bad influence on our children because of those no-no biknis. We should enforce advertisement to stop doing that.

And so many different scenarios.

Again, it is only an example, so no need to bash back on me cuz of those examples.
 
Originally posted by Bush_in_2004!
Waterrats asked: "What does the subject God have to do with politics? Could you explain in depth, please, so I can understand what you were talking about? Please? Ta!"

okay, since you asked . . .

If I were to run for president a press conference would go like this:

reporter: pro or anti-abortion?

me: pro choice.

reporter: marriage restricted to hetrosexuals?

me: marriage open to all genders, mix or match.

reporter: what religious faith do you subscribe to?

me: none. I'm agnositic.

(silence in the room).

(reporters jotting notes down in notebooks)

(the silence of votes doing down the drain.)





in today's society agnositic people, or atheists for that matter, are unelectable in national politics -- the U.S. is still a God-Fearing country.
Click to expand...

Nah, they are electable! That will garner more voters because most of us want "Separation of Church and State" so Agnostic or Atheist candidates can reinforce the separation.

check this url and you might see that non-religion are growing..

http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/atheist4.htm
or
http://www.gc.cuny.edu/studies/key_findings.htm
 
b, at the local and state level, yes we have a chance to get elected if we work hard, BUT, at the national level? no, the bible belt rules:(
 
Originally posted by Bush_in_2004!
b, at the local and state level, yes we have a chance to get elected if we work hard, BUT, at the national level? no, the bible belt rules:(
Click to expand...

Nah, I think otherwise...
 
Originally posted by Bush_in_2004!
Clinton, sex and all, made better decisions than any president since LBJ. That is the bottom line for me.
Click to expand...

Clinton signed the "Defense of Marriage Act"(1996) into law,
http://www.cnn.com/US/9609/10/gay.marriage/

so you still want Clinton to come back?

but I agree with your comment 100% unless you change...

anyway here's graphic regarding "Defense of Marriage Act"

popup.same.sex.marriages.gif
 
Last edited:
not to make an excuse for clinton, but at the time states could legally "discriminate" against gays, that however has been changed by the Supreme Court. It is likely Clinton would not sign the bill if it crossed his desk today.

Further, the bill was probably a result of compromise -- clinton agreed to sign the bill in exchange for getting some things HE wanted in the bill while trading for some language to please conservatives. I'm almost dead certain Clinton didn't agree with the entire bill but felt signing it what was best for our country at the time.

Another bill that I bet Clinton regret signing was the telecommunications act of 1996 -- who would have figured a few Big Businesses would become so greedy and buy up a major portion of all the radio stations and television stations in this country? Oops! What have we learned? Don't trust big corporations and their cries for "financial relief!"
 
Clinton

I'd rather have 100 years of Clinton over 1 year of Bush anytime, but... Thank gosh for term limits, otherwise Duhbyucka would be prez forever.

Clinton lied, no one died.
Duhbyucka lied, people died. Impeach Bush!
 
Back
Top